IN RE: VALAGURU ASARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner has been convicted under Sec. 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months by the District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli confirmed the conviction and sentence. The following facts are not disputed before me:

(2.) The Food Inspector (P.W. 1) found the petitioner carrying milk in a chombu covered with a tumbler at about 8 a.m. on 13th March, 1965 in the outskirts of Manapparai. P.W. 1 called the petitioner for the purpose of taking sample milk when the petitioner was going at a distance of half a furlong from him. The petitioner poured the entire milk from the chombu in the paddy field, threw away the chombu and the tumbler and ran away. P.W. 1 seized the chombu and the tumbler and filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he prevented him from taking the sample.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the conviction under Sec. 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cannot be sustained for the reason that there was nothing to show from the evidence of the Food Inspector that he either demanded sample from the petitioner or that he expressed his intention to take sample from the petitioner. There appears to be substance in the contention of the learned Counsel.