KRISHAN LAL AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE precise connotation that should be placed on the word 'prevents' in Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is the significant question which arises for interpretation in this criminal miscellaneous application.

(2.) THE issue arises in this petition seeking to quash the institution of criminal proceedings against the three Petitioners by the Food Inspector in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Palwal. In the complaint filed against them it was alleged that on 29th March, 1974, the Petitioners were present on the premises of Messrs Gupta Ice Factory, Palwal and were in possession of ice candies for purposes of public sale when the complainant Food Inspector reached there. They informed him that the space and equipment for the manufacture of candies had been given over to a contractor and on the false pretence of calling him to the premises all the three of them slipped away from the factory one by one and neither returned thereto nor brought the alleged contractor thereat. On these allegations, the Food Inspector filed the impugned complaint against the Petitioners levelling a charge against them of preventing him from taking a sample as authorised by the Act. The trial Magistrate, - -vide a detailed order , dated the 27th of August, 1974 found a prima facie case made out from the complaint under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act against the Petitioners who framed a charge accordingly. The Petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. However, the present petition was later instituted primarily on the ground that even accepting all the prosecution allegations as laid in the complaint to be true, no offence whatsoever is disclosed.

(3.) NOW the primary contention of Mr. M. L. Sarin is that even accepting the prosecution case as laid, the mere slipping away from the factory premises by all the three Petitioners on a false pretence, and thereby evading the proceedings under the Act does not amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample and is, therefore, not an offence under Section 16. In the alternative, it was contended that the Food Inspector has the power under Section 10(4) of seizing and carrying away the adulterated or misbranded food and taking samples therefrom and consequently it cannot be said that he was prevented from doing so.