(1.) In this revision the petitioner has challenged his conviction under section 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act No. 37 of 1954) (hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months passed by the trial court which were affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court.
(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 29.1.1967 the Food Inspector (P.W. I) visited the shop of the petitioner along with his subordinates, namely, Mithu Mahto (P.W. 2) and Ratan Ram (P.W. 3) and demanded samples of turmeric (Haldi) which were exposed for sale in his shop. The further prosecution case is that the petitioner refused to give the samples and obstructed P.W.1 from taking the sample and also pushed him out of the shop.
(3.) The defence, in short, is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated because the petitioner who was called by P.W. 1 through P.W. 3, refused to go to the residence of P.W. 1. The further defence is that the petitioner did not prevent P.W. 1 from taking the samples. The trial court after taking evidence convicted the petitioner as aforesaid which has been affirmed in appeal by the judgment passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya.