NARAIN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TERSELY speaking shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that on Sept. 6, 1970 Food Inspector Shri V. D. Sharma visited the shop of the petitioner Narain Prasad and found him selling sweetmeats. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity demanded from him a sample of 'ghewar. ' The accused-petitioner refused to take the prescribed notice in the prescribed form No. 6 and also refused to sell him the sample of 'ghewar'. He was tried for contravening the provisions of Section 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ). The learned Magistrate First Class, Ajmer found the accused guilty under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act and sentenced him to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 750/-and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, vide his judgment dated Nov. 29, 1971.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused petitioner went in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer but without any success.

(3.) ON revision, the case came up for decision before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on Sept. 2, 1977. During the course of arguments his Lordship noticed that two contradictory views were expressed by different Division Benches of this Court on the same point. Lodha J. and J. P. Jain J. in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1969 (Municipal Council, Jaipur v. Ganesh Narayan, decided on 7-11-1972) held that an overt act or physical obstruction is not the sine qua non of an offence under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act, while in Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 1970, (Municipal Council, Jaipur v. Mangilal reported in 1975 Raj LW 577): (1975 Cri lj 1728)) it was held by another Division Bench 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 the act of the accused in not cooperating with the Food Inspector would not tantamount to preventing the Food inspector from taking the sample. Mere refusal to give sample to the Food inspector did not amount to preventing him within the meaning of Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act.