NARAIN PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a controversial issue on which the two Division Bench authorities of this court are at variance The question whether mere refusal to give sample demanded by the Food Inspector comes within the mischief of Sec. 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the present case the petitioner refused to give sample of 'Ghewar to the Food Inspector when he demanded the same for analysis. He was challaned under the provisions of the Act, and the courts below found him guilty for an offence under Sec. 16(1) of the Act.

(2.) Hon'ble Lodha J. and Hon'ble J.P. Jain J. in D B criminal appeal No. 108 of 1969 Municipal Council, Jaipur vs. Ganesh Narain decided on 7 -11 -1972 held that an overt act or physical obstruction is a sine qua non for committing the offence under Sec. 16 of the Act. In another D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 578/70 Municipal Council Jaipur vs. Mangilal reported in : 1975 WLN 343) it was held that if the accused had shown his unwillingness to give sample to the Food Inspector but was willing to accompany the Food Inspector wherever he desired to take him, then it was negative approach of the accused and his not co -operating with the Food Inspector was not tantamount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample. The mere refusal to give sample to the Food Inspector did not amount to prevent him within the Sec. 16(1)(b) of the Act. These two opinions of the learned Judges in the aforesaid two authorities are contradictory to each other. In my opinion to settle the law on the subject it is necessary that the matter may be referred to the Full Bench. It is therefore, ordered that this revision petition may be placed for disposal before the Full Bench in the next month.