FOOD INSPECTOR CHITTOOR Vs. MUTUKU RAVICHANDRA BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether mere refusal by the accused vendor to give sample to the Food Inspector would amount to preventing the Food Inspector from collecting sample under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The facts that give rise to the determination of the above issue are as under. On 26-10-1994 at about 3.35 p.m. the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) along with another Sanitary Inspector (P.W. 2) visited the business premises of the respondents and found the 1st respondent (A-1) carrying on business. During the course of inspection, P.W. 1 found 6 kgs. of 'Areca' nuts kept in an open tin along with other food articles. On enquiry, the 1st respondent informed that he purchased the said 'Areca' nuts from an unknown person without any valid bill. Thereupon when P.Ws. 1 and 2 asked the 1st respondent to sell 600 grams of the said 'Areca' nuts, the 1st respondent refused to do so stating that if samples of 'Areca' nuts are given for analysis, he has to face lot of problems. The Food Inspector thereafter filed the complaint under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act treating the said refusal of the 1st respondent as a contravention under the Act. The said complaint was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate and numbered as STC No. 65/1996.

(3.) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-18. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the Court below held that mere refusal by the 1st respondent to give sample to the Food Inspector would not tantamount to 'prevention' as envisaged under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly acquitted the respondents. Hence, this appeal by the State.