TULSI RAM Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application by the above named applicant is directed against his conviction and sentence under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE prosecution case against him as found proved by the Court below was that on 28 -10 -1971 the accused was carrying milk for sale on the Ravindranath Tagore Marg of the city of Indore. He had distributed milk to certain persons and while he was on the road the Food Inspector Vishnu Chandorkar (P.W.1) stopped him and asked him to give a sample of the milk but the accused refused to give. The Food Inspector was, in these circumstances, according to the prosecution, prevented from taking sample of the milk carried by the accused for being sold. The Food Inspector, there fore, prepared a Panchnama (Ex. P. 1) and then filed a complaint against the applicant for the aforesaid offence. The defence of the applicant was that the milk carried by him was not meant for sale; that he was not a milk vendor and that the milk which he was carrying in two containers was meant for his home consumption. The learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rejected this defence and have found the applicant guilty of preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample or the milk. These findings of the Court below are challenged in this revision application.

(3.) IN his examination -in -chief Vishnu Chandorkar (P.W. 1) has stated that the accused did not permit him to take a sample of the milk carried by him from one of the tin containers in which milk was being carried by the applicant. While being cross -examined the witness admitted that after the milk contained in the milk contail1er was sturred and sample was being taken the accused refused to give a sample. He further admitted that the refusal made by the applicant was only oral and that there was no other overt act committed by the accused, which could obstruct him from taking the Sample from the container. Lastly, he admitted that since the accused refused to give the sample, he did not take it. The question is whether on these facts the accused can be said to have prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample. In my opinion, on these facts, the accused cannot be held guilty of having prevented the Food Inspector from taking the sample of milk which, under the Act, he was authorised to take from the accused.