J.L. ROY Vs. NEPAL CHANDRA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by a special leave at the instance of the Food Inspector -cum -Urban Health Officer, Karimganj Municipality. Karimganj is directed against a judgment of acquittal passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate (J.), Karimgani in case under Section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, briefly the Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the Food Inspector with witnesses visited the shop of the accused, who is a partner of a firm, Messrs. Bhudai Nepal Chandra Lalit Mohan Saha and on suspicion that there was adulterated flour inside the shop, asked the accused to give sample of 600 grams of flour from one of the bags which were found in the shop. The accused refused to supply the sample. This happened on 25th November, 1970. Being unsuccessful that way he made a written report (Exhibit 2) to the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Karimgani on the following day and requested to accord sanction for prosecution of the accused under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. We may as well quote in extenso this report as the sanction for prosecution was based by the Chairman on this report. It is admitted by Mr. S. K. Sen, tine learned Counsel for the appellant, that there is no other report in the record.

(3.) IT is therefore, clear that the Food Inspector can enter the shop under the law and without any assistance from the shopkeeper or the person -in -charge can take sample of any article of flood stored far sale in the shop. If in taking of sample, which is authorised under the Act, for which no consent of the person -in -charge of the shopkeeper is necessary he is prevented from carrying into effect the taking of the sample, offence under Section 16(1)(b)is committed. It is not necessary that when the Food Inspector wants to take sample that some force shall be used upon him by the shopkeeper or by the person -in -charge. It is also not necessary that there should be a fracas over the taking of sample. The Food Inspectors are not usually accompanied by Police Officers. They are authorised under the Act and are conferred with only certain powers of the Police Officers in order to carry out their duties under the Act. If any assault is made upon the Food Inspector, who is a public servant under Section 21 I. P. C., provisions of the Indian Penal Code may also be attracted. While an offence under Section 16(1)(b) may be committed, it may also be possible that other offences may also be committed justifying action under the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate was entirely wrong in holding that force must be used upon the Food Inspector in order that the offence under Section 16(1)(b) may toe committed. There is no ingredient of force necessary to establish an offence under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act if from the facts found the Inspector is prevented from taking the sample.