NARAYANPRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the revision of the accused Narayana Prasad, who has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay the fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine to Two months rigorous imprisonment under section 16(1) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) Both the Courts below, relying on the oral testimonies of the Food Inspector P. W. 1 R. D. Dohre and P. W. 3 R. C. Jam, who had accompanied the said food Inspector to the Kirana shop of the applicant-accused on 26.9.1977, have held that the applicant accused, on the demand of the Food Inspector to sell him the sample of ground-nut oil, whose tins were found kept in the shop, had refused to sell him the sample and had refused to sign the notice, which was intended to be give to the applicant-accused in this regard. It was equally held by both these Courts that the appellant accused had told the Food Inspector at the relevant time that the oil was not a item, which was manufactured at his house and that, whatever, he purchased from the Seths of Diodori, he had been selling the same. On being further asked to produce the bills for purchase of the tins of oil, the applicant accused had further told him that he had no time to show him any bills, whatsoever; and that, he would not sell the sample of oil to him nor would he sign any papers. Both the Courts have also held that the applicant-accused had told the Food Inspector finally, to go away from his place and to take, whatever action against him as the Food Inspector may like to take. According to both the Courts, all these overt acts and conduct as stated above of the applicant-accused and his demeanour amounted to preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample, as authorized by the provisions of the Act and as such, was punishable under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant-accused to the extent, as stated at the outset. The lower appellate Court equally maintained the same. He now the present revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant accused has urged the solitary point that the facts as held proved, by both the Courts below, did not tantamount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample. According to the applicants counsel, the terms refusal and prevention are not synonymous, and at worst, the case against the applicant focused would be that of refusal and not of prevention, and such refusal is no offence under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act. In support of his contention the applicants learned counsel has cited Chhedilal and another v. Medical Health Officer1, Faizabad Municipality and Municipal Council Jaipur v. Mangilal.2 The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the non-applicant-State has, however, contended that the case in question is of prevention, fully covered under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In support of his argument he has cited Municipal Board v. Jhammanlal3 and Habib Khan v. State of M.P.4