JAGANNATH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 16(1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for preventing the Food Inspector from taking sample of milk and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) THE facts found are that on 14 -5 -1974 when the applicant was taking 5 litres of milk in his kothi for sale, Food Inspector Sharma (p. W. 1) stopped the applicant, as he suspected the milk to be adulterated. The Food Inspector then asked the applicant to accompany him to the Municipal Office for taking sample. After reaching the office, the applicant quietly bolted away, leaving his kothi of milk. This has been found proved from the statement of the Food Inspector duly corroborated by the panch Ramautar (P. W. 2). The defence was of denial and that he has been falsely implicated. The applicant further asserted that as his milk was found. not adulterated, the Food Inspector asked him to go away, and so he left along with his Kothi. The defence has been disbelieved. The Courts below have held that thereby the applicant had prevented the Food Inspector from taking sample and committed offence under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act, For this purpose reliance has been placed on a single bench decision of this Court in Habib Khan v. State of M. P., 1971 MPLJ 883.

(3.) SECTION 16 (1) (b) provides that if a person prevents a Food Inspector from taking sample as authorised by this Act, he shall be punished with imprisonment and fine. Under Section 10, a Food Inspector has the power to take sample of any article of Food meant for sale, the Inspector may enter and inspect any place where any article of food is manufactured or stored for sale. He can even seize such article of food if it appears to be adulterated or misbranded. The Inspector has also power to break open the door or any package in which article of food is kept. For these purposes the Inspector has been empowered to exercise powers of search and seizure of a police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Food Inspector may also exercise the powers of a police officer under Section 57 of the Code i. e. to arrest an offender if he refuses to disclose his name and residence. Section 11 prescribes the procedure to be followed by a Food Inspector while taking sample. He may either give notice, pay price and deliver one sample bottle to the vendor or if he declines to accept the same, then the Food Inspector is required to send intimation to this effect to the Public Analyst along with the sample for analysis. Therefore, the Food Inspector can follow one of the two modes, one where the vendor co -operates, the other when he refuses to co -operate. One prevents a Food Inspector from taking sample when he does something which makes it impossible for the Inspector to take the sample. So when the vendor simply bolts away from the spot leaving behind the article of food, thereby he could not frustrate the Inspector from taking sample because the Inspector can still take sample in the absence of the vendor. Prevention consists in hindering a person or obstructing him from taking the particular action or doing the particular act. Prevention does not mean only obstruction by physical force but it may involve threat.