YADD RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE precise connotation that could be attached to the word 'prevents' in section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is the interesting issue of interpretation which arises in this petition.

(2.) TERSELY speaking, shorn of all unnecessary details, the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that on June 2, 1979, Food Inspector Dr. Sat Pal visited the shop of M/s. Sadhu Ram Sushil Kumar at Moga and found the Petitioners selling 'Patashas' besides some other articles. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity wanted to purchase Patashas from the accused-petitioners for analysis. In the meantime, Lajpat Rai petitioner slipped away from the shop. The Food Inspector served a notice (Form No. VI) on Yadd Ram petitioner but he refused to sign or thumb mark the same. He, however, then purchased 1-1/2 kgs. of Patashas from Yadd Ram for Rs. 6/-. He paid the price to Yadd Ram but when asked to sign or thumb mark in token of his having received the price, the latter refused to do so. The notice and the receipt were attested by Dr. Avtar Singh Virk. When the Food Inspector completed the formalities and had just sealed one packet, Lajpat Rai petitioner accompanied by some persons appeared on the scene and he physically pushed back the Food Inspector and snatched the papers concerning the taking of sample from Yadd Ram. The letter snatched the sealed sample from the Food Inspector while the other two parts of the sample were snatched away by some persons from amongst the crowd. The members of the crowd continued hooting and as a result thereof, the Food Inspector was compelled to leave the place without the sample and the documents being prepared by him. The petitioner were tried for contravening the provisions of Section 16(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the said offence and sentenced them. Being aggrieved by the judgment of their conviction and sentence by the trial Magistrate, the petitioners went up in appeal but without any success.

(3.) IN District Board Patna v. Sadhu Sao, 1972 FAC 265 the accused in that case on being asked by the Food Inspector to give 6 chhataks of mustard oil by way of sample, refused to give sample to the Food Inspector. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the act of the accused which includes also his omission had the consequence of preventing the Food Inspector from obtaining the sample from a person selling the article of food concerned. Keeping the above proposition of law in view, I shall now examination examine whether in the case in hand it has been proved from material on record that the petitioners not only refused to give sample of 'Patashas' for the purpose of analysis to the Food Inspector but created such circumstances whereby the Food Inspector can be said to have been prevented from taking the sample within the meaning of Section 16(1)(c) of the Act.