S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) Amanat son of Sardari Lal petitioner was brought to trial before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepore on charge under section I6(l)(b) and 16(I)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50 made thereunder. Having been found guilty on both the counts he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on the first count and a fine of Rs. 500.00 on the second. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, upheld the conviction of the petitioner, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the statutory minimum of six months and raised the fine to Rs. 100/".
(2.) It is unnecessary to advert to the facts of the case which have been delineated in great detail in the judgment of the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised identical points which were raised before the lower appellate Court. It would be wasteful to traverse same ground over again. It, therefore, suffices to mention that for the reasons recorded the lucid judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. I find no merit in this revision which is dismissed and the finding of the learned Courts below are hereby affirmed.
(3.) It deserves pointed attention that the primary petitioner was with regard to his preventing the Food Inspector the sample of Kulfie, which he was selling at a public place taking a ought to be raised in the Courts below that his conduct in declining to sell the Kulfi to the Inspector and thereafter decamping from the spot and even after being recalled his further refusal to give the sample was not within the ambit of criminality. This matter is now concluded by this Court in Division Bench judgment in Krishan Lal, etc. Vs. State of Haryana, 1978 (II) FAC 144 wherein it was held as follows - "An overall reading of the aforesaid provision, therefore, makes it plain that both the presence and the participation of the sellar in taking a sample under section 10(l)(a)(i) is essentially envisaged by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 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 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 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 hindred 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 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. To my mind the situation would also be identical where the seller, though physically present determinedly refuses to participate etc. co-operate or comply with the mandate of the law.";