HABIB KHAN Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, who is a licensed milk dealer, has been found guilty under section 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He has preferred this revision challenging his conviction.

(2.) ON the date of the incident, the Food Inspector Puntambekar was standing near the gate of the Secretariate at Bhopal at about 11 A.M. The applicant, who supplies milk to the Canteen at the Secretariate, came there with a Can of milk. The Food Inspector asked him to give a sample of the milk, but the applicant, without paying any heed to the request, went to the Canteen. The Food Inspector, along with witnesses, followed him and reached the Canteen which was situated at the fourth storey. At this stage, the applicant left the Can of milk in the Canteen and bolted away. The Food Inspector attached the Can in the presence of the witnesses and prepared a Panchanama on these facts the applicant was prosecuted.

(3.) THE Courts below mainly relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Municipal Board, Sambhal v. Jhammanlal, AIR 1961 All 103. In the Allahabad Case, the Food Inspector reached the shop of Vendor Jhamman Lal and asked him to give a sample of mustard oil which was stored their for the purposes of sale. Jhamman Lal, instead of complying with the request of the Food Inspector, left the shop and promised to come back shortly; but he did not return. When Jhamman Lal did not return for a long time, the Food Inspector left the shop and thereafter made a report against Jhamman lal that he prevented him from obtaining the sample. On these facts, the trial Court found Jbamman Lal guilty; but, in appeal, it was urged before the Sessions Judge that in order to prevent a sample being taken there should have been some overt act; that it was open to the Food Inspector, in the absence of Jhamman Lal, to take a sample from the tin and, therefore, it could not be said that the Food Inspector had been prevented from taking the sample. This argument prevailed before the Sessions Judge who allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of Jhamman Lal. The High Court of Allahabad, however, set aside the acquittal. It was urged before the High Court that when a person leaves the shop; he "prevents the Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by this Act", because one of the methods authorised by the Act by which he can take sample under the Act is from any person selling such article, and that if the person, who was selling the article, disappears, then, in that event, the Food Inspector is prevented from taking sample in the manner authorised by the Act. On behalf of the accused the contentions raised before the Sessions Judge were reiterated. On these arguments, the High Court, however, held :