A.S.BAINS, J. - (1.) ON 12th October, 1979, at 3.30 p.m. Sube singh, Food Inspector along with Dr. S.C. Mittal, Jogi Ram and Jai Kishan P. Ws. were present at the Halwai Shop of the respondent. The respondent had about 40 Kgs. of milk for sale at his shop. After disclosing his identity the Food Inspector demanded the sample of milk. The respondent refused to give the sample of milk and ran away from his shop and disappeared. It is alleged by the prosecution that in this way the Food Inspector was prevented by the respondent from taking the sample of the milk. The Food Inspector prepared the memo and recorded the statements of Jai Kishan and Jogi Ram and filed the complaint under Section 16(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as the Act) in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that from the fact that the respondent refused to give the sample and ran away from his shop it cannot be held that he prevented the Food Inspector form taking the sample. Hence this appeal against has acquittal by the State of Haryana.
(2.) THE prosecution case is supported by Food Inspector Sube Singh (P.W. 1), Jai Kishan (P.W. 2,) Jogin Ram 4 (P.W. 3) and Dr. S.C. Mittal (P.W. 4). They deposed that the respondent refused to give a sample of milk and ran away from his shop and disappeared after leaving the shop. Section 16(1)(c) and (d) of the Act is in the following terms :- "16 Penalties. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1-A), if any person :- (c) Prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by this Act; or (d) prevents a Food Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act; he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees". From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is plain that if a persons prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample or from exercising any other power under the Act, he shall be liable for punishment. The evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witness establishes that the respondent prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample of milk as he first refused and then ran away and disappeared leaving his shop, thus, in these circumstances, it was not possible for the Food Inspector to take a sample in accordance with law. In such a situation the Food Inspector is effectually hindered from complying with the provisions of the Act, i.e. the procedure laid down under Section 10 and 11 of the Act and, therefore, the respondent frustrated or circumvented and forestalled the taking of sample from him by the Food Inspector. The presence and participation of the seller in taking sample under Section 19(1)(a)(i) of the Act is essential. With respect we hold that the authorities reported as M.C. Jaipur v. Magni Lal, 1975(II) F.A.C. 284 and State of Gujarat v. Lalji Bhai, AIR 1967 Guj. 61 and Rewati v. Jamsher Pur, AIR 1970 Patna 104 and relied upon by the learned Magistrate, do not lay down sound law. It seems that our own Court's Division Bench authority reported as Krishan Lal and other v. State of Haryana, 1978(II) F.A.C. 144, escaped notice of the learned Magistrate. The present case falls within the ambit of the principle of law as laid down in the aforesaid Division Bench authority of this Court, wherein it was observed as under :- "Where a seller slips away and evades to participate in the necessary proceedings, the Food Inspector is obviously prevented from taking the sample in accordance with the law. In the absence of the seller neither the price of the article can be tendered to him nor the notice required by law can be delivered or the signatures or thumb-impressions of the seller can be taken on the sealed samples. It is therefore, plain that in such a situation the Food Inspector is effectually hindered from complying with the provisions of the Act or to put in other words the taking of a sample from persons selling such an article is frustrated or circumvented. Applying the ordinary dictionary meaning, therefore, it follows that in such a situation, the Food Inspector in fact and in law is prevented from taking a sample in accordance with the statutory provisions,. The situation would also be identical where the seller, though physically present, determinedly refuses to participate, cooperate or comply with the mandate of the law. The mere taking of sample sub-sequently from seized articles is no substitute or equivalent of taking a sample in the mode prescribed from the seller of the article itself." Thus, from the aforesaid observations it is clear that when a persons slips away of refuses to give sample, the requirement of law for taking sample is not fulfilled and the case would fall under the aforesaid provision. In Webster's New Rorld Dictionary, 1962 Edition, the meaning given to the word "prevents" is :- "1. (a) to act in anticipation of (an event or a fixed time); (b) to anticipate (a desire, want, objection, etc.) (c) to anticipate in action; (d) to precede; (e) to forestall; balk; frustrate. 2. To stop or keep from happening; make impossible by prior action; hinder." From the dictionary meaning of the word 'prevents' as defined above, it is clear that the respondent by slipping away from the shop, frustrated the taking of the sample and forestalled him from proceeding further, and thus prevented the Food Inspector from performing his lawful duties, as the respondent anticipated that the Food Inspector shall take the sample from his shop. In such a situation, we are of the view that the learned Magistrate fell in error in acquitting the respondent. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence. They have no animus against the respondent. The plea taken by the respondent in his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, that Dr. Saraf owed him some money on account of price of milk and since Dr. Saraf refused to make the payment the proceedings against him were taken is an after-thought. In fact, the respondent refused to give a sample of milk to the Food Inspector and then ran away and disappeared from his shop, which would bring him within the four corners of the provisions of the law punishable under Section 16(1)(c) and (d) of the Act. The provisions of the penal statutes to be construed strictly. The persons who indulge in adulteration of food or of medicines or of any commodity are the enemies of the society. They indulge in most heinous crime and no benefit can be given to such persons on liberal construction of a provision. Moreover, the provision does not call for any other construction. It is matter of common knowledge that the food adulteration and adulteration of other commodities like the medicines etc. has reached the saturation point and there is hardly any article which is pure. We have observed in a number of such cases that the State must come out with more stringent law and whole time and effective machinery to curb this anti-social crime. For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home guilt to the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the acquittal order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the respondent is convicted under Section 16(1)(c) and (d) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.;