S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) IN this criminal revision Sher Singh petitioner assails his conviction under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act). The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, or in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, not only upheld his conviction but confirmed his sentence. The broad outline of the prosecution is that on September 30, 1977, at about 6.30 a.m., Dr. Bhagat Ram, Food Inspector, alongwith Dr. R.K. Sharma and Durga Dass was present on the Patiala-Sanaur road in connection with seizing samples of food articles. They intercepted Sher Singh petitioner, who was found carrying 2 drums containing 40 Lts. of cows' milk for sale. He was carrying those drums on his cycle. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the petitioner and demanded sample of cows' milk from him for analysis. Instead of selling milk to the Inspector, the petitioner suddenly rode his cycle towards Sanaur side and emptied both the drums of milk in the nearby pond. Thus he prevented the Food Inspector from taking sample of the milk possessed by him for analysis.
(2.) THE prosecution examined Dr. Bhagat Ram and Dr. R.K. Sharma in support of its case: The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case but led no evidence in defence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even accepting the prosecution allegations as true, no offence whatsoever is disclosed. Reliance is placed on a decision in Bishan Dass Telu Ram v. The State, AIR 1957 Punj. 99. In this very short judgment, it has been held that mere refusal to give a sample does not amount to prevention which, however, need not have an element of physical obstruction but would necessarily involve some act which hinders an Inspector from taking a sample. In the other single Bench judgment reported as The State of Gujarat v. Laljibhai Chatarbhai, AIR 1967 Guj. also there are observations to the effect that in order to come within the ambit of prevention there must be a physical obstruction or a threat or an assault and mere refusal to give a sample or merely leaving premises, would not amount to prevention. This matter now stand concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1978 P.L.R. 533, wherein it has been held as under :- "That the plain and ordinary meaning of the word 'prevent' does not in any way connote or necessitate a physical obstruction or threat or assault. Therefore, to induct these as a necessary concomitant of prevention appears to me as wholly unwarranted. Therefore 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 law. In the absence of the seller neither the price of the article can be tendered to him nor the notice required by the law can be delivered on the signature or thumb impression 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 it in other words the taking of a sample from a person selling such an article is frustrated or circum-vented. 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."
(3.) THE above observations clearly apply to the present case, I, therefore, maintain the conviction of the petitioner.;