Rajeshwar Singh, J. - (1.) The Magistrate convicted one Krishna Kumar under section 10 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine two months further simple imprisonment was ordered Krishna Kumar filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Against that judgment the present revision has been filed.
(2.) In prosecution story was that the Food Inspector was taking simple from the shop of one Taqmil Khan. The revisionist has his sweetmeat shop in the neighbourhood of the shop of Taqmil Khan. The revisionist left his shop and came at the shop of Taqmil Khan and insisted that sample be taken from shop. The Food Inspector replied that after he had Hen the sample from Taqmil Khan he would take sample from the shop of the revisionist. Feeling enraged one of the three bottles of the sample was thrown on the ground and broken by the revisionist. When Food Inspector tried to prevent it he was beaten and abused and the revisionist did not permit to complete the remaining proceedings of sample being taken. These allegations do amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample as he is authorised to do. Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides that a person, who prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1000/-. The aforesaid allegations of the prosecution amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample and minimum sentence has been Karded.
(3.) The learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed the following grounds: 1. The man, from whose shop sample was being taken, has not been produced as a witness. 2. Prosecution has not proved as to what common interest the revisionist had with the person from whose shop sample was being taken. 3. Even if the whole story is accepted it will be an offence under section 332 I.P.C. and not under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. The Food Inspector has not produced any medical report showing injuries on his person. 5. All the witnesses produced are departmental witnesses and one of them Khubram has given evidence in 50 cases. 6. There is discrepancy between the statements of witnesses regarding place of occurrence. 7. The Food Inspector did not ask the revisionist to leave and not to insist on his sample being taken. When three bottles of samples were prepared and only one was broken, then why two samples were not procured or sent to the Public Analyst. 9. The revisionist has ill will the Food Inspector. 10. Why the first information report was not lodged at the police station ? 11. These Food Inspectors take money and implicate only those persons who do not pay the same. 12. Sentence awarded is too severe.;