PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. DOREDLA RAMAYYA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This Appeal is by the State against the acquittal of the accused
of the charge under Sec. 16 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Foods Adulteration
Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.
A-1 and A-2 are partners in a business dealing in foodgrains
like turmeric, jaggery, palsesy flours and oils at door No. 10-1-172 on
Vinukonda road in Narasaraopet, The case for the proseution is
that on 16-5-67 at about 9-00 A. M. P. W. 1, the Food Inspector
Narasaraopet Municipality along with his Maistry, P. W. 2 went to
the shop of the accused and found two bags of turmeric powder kept
in the shop for purposes of sale. P. W. 1 demanded A-l to give
sample of turmeric in one of the bags for purposes of analysis but A-l
refused and when A-2 was asked he also refused. Then P. W. I told
them that such refusal is wrongful under the provisions of the Act.
A-1 asked A-2 to lock the shop and after A-2 had done so of both
them went away, P. Ws. 1 and' 2 waited there for some time and
when the accused did not torn, in the presence of P. W. 2 one Khaderveli,
he drafted a panchanama and then filed the charge' sheet under
See. 16 (l) (b) of the Act for preventing the Food Inspector
from taking sample as authorised by the Act; In support of this case
the prosecution had examined P. Ws. 1 to 3.
(2.) The accused denied the offence and contended that the Food
Inspector never visited their shop and he was not prevented from
taking any sample of the turmeric powder and examined five witnesses
in his defence.
(3.) The Magistrate on an examination of the evidence found the
accused not guilty of the charge and acquitted the accused of the
charge. Hence this appeal by the State.
It is strenuously contended on behalf of the accused here that
even if the prosecution story is true merely refusing to give a sample
and locking the door and going away does not amount to preventing
the Food Inspector from taking the sample as contemplated by Sec
16 (1) (b) of the Act that the Food Inspector is authorised and
empowered under the Act itself to take the sample by force and
if necessary by breaking open the lock of the shop in so far as he was not
physically prevented from doing any such act, he cannot be said to
have been prevented from taking the sample. This contention is not
tenable. The word 'prevents' only means 'to hinder effectively' from ,
taking the sample. It does not necessarily mean that there should be
actual prevention by using physical force against the Food Inspector
who intends to take sample. As pointed in Municipal Board Vs.
Jhamman Lal if a person selling the article leaves the shop when
the Food Inspector had come and bad asked for sample even then he
should be construed to have prevented the Food Inspector from taking
the sample and if a person disappears from the shop he has done
an overt act by means of which he has made it impossible for the
Food Inspector to obtain a sample from him. In that case there were
two persons, the first person who was asked to give a sample left the
shop saying that he will come shortly and did; not return and when
the second person in the shop was asked to supply the sample he
stated that only the first person that could give and saying that he
would fetch him left the place and both of them did not return for an
hour and a half ; the Food Inspector left the place and gave a report
In those circumstances the accused were found to have prevented the .
Food Inspector from taking the sample. In Public Prosecutor Vs.
Murugesan the accused who was carrying milk was asked to give the
milk for sample, but he went into a hotel nearby and had the milk
poured into a milk pan in which milk was also boiling. It was held
therein that the accused by his action had effectively prevented the
officer from taking sample, and that ne further overt act was necessary
to make out 'preventing' under the section. In the present case
the Accused if P. W. 1 is believed had gone further. A-1 and A-2
refused to give sample and at the instance of A-1, A-2 locked the shop
and both of them Had left the place. Thus they had effectively pre-.
vented P. W. 1 from taking any sample. So, if the prosecution version is
accepted the case against the accused under Sec. 16 (l)-(b) is
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.