S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE precise connotation that should be placed on the word 'prevents' in Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is the significant question which arises for interpretation in this criminal miscellaneous application.
(2.) THE issue arises in this petition seeking to quash the institution of criminal proceedings against the three Petitioners by the Food Inspector in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Palwal. In the complaint filed against them it was alleged that on 29th March, 1974, the Petitioners were present on the premises of Messrs Gupta Ice Factory, Palwal and were in possession of ice candies for purposes of public sale when the complainant Food Inspector reached there. They informed him that the space and equipment for the manufacture of candies had been given over to a contractor and on the false pretence of calling him to the premises all the three of them slipped away from the factory one by one and neither returned thereto nor brought the alleged contractor thereat. On these allegations, the Food Inspector filed the impugned complaint against the Petitioners levelling a charge against them of preventing him from taking a sample as authorised by the Act. The trial Magistrate, - -vide a detailed order , dated the 27th of August, 1974 found a prima facie case made out from the complaint under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act against the Petitioners who framed a charge accordingly. The Petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. However, the present petition was later instituted primarily on the ground that even accepting all the prosecution allegations as laid in the complaint to be true, no offence whatsoever is disclosed. The rather delicate question as to what amounts to preventing a Food Inspector from taking a sample in the present context must necessarily revolve round the relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, at the very outset these deserve notice in extenso. 10. Powers of Food Inspectors. - -(1) A Food Inspector shall have power - - (a) to take samples of any article of food from - - (i) any person selling such article; (ii) any person who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee; (iii) a consignee after delivery of any such article to him; * * * * (4) If any article intended for food appears to any Food Inspector to be adulterated or misbranded, he may seize and carry away or keep in the safe custody of the vendor such article in order that it may be dealt with as hereinafter provided (and he shall, in either case, take a sample of such article and submit the same for analysis to a Public Analyst): * * * * 11. Procedure to be followed by Food Inspectors. - -(1) When a Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall - - (a) give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A ; (b) except in special cases provided by rules under this Act, divide the sample then and there into three parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb -impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that where such person refuses to sign of put his thumb -impression the Food Inspector shall call upon one or more witnesses and take his or their signatures or thumb -impressions, as the case may be, in lieu of the signature or thumb -impression of such person ; * * * * * 16. Penalties. - -(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub -section (1A), 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; or ***** 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 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:
(3.) NOW the primary contention of Mr. M. L. Sarin is that even accepting the prosecution case as laid, the mere slipping away from the factory premises by all the three Petitioners on a false pretence, and thereby evading the proceedings under the Act does not amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample and is, therefore, not an offence under Section 16. In the alternative, it was contended that the Food Inspector has the power under Section 10(4) of seizing and carrying away the adulterated or misbranded food and taking samples therefrom and consequently it cannot be said that he was prevented from doing so.;