UJAGAR SINGH,J - (1.) AFTER trial of the revision-petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (shortly the Act), he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer R.I. for a further period of two months, by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide order dated 25.11.1982. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence before the Court of Session, Kurukshetra, but the same was dismissed. This criminal revision has been filed to challenge the order of the trial Court, as also of the appellate Court.
(2.) ON 29.11.1977 Food Inspector Moti Ram (PW1) visited the shop of the petitioner when he was accompanied by Dr. V.K. Malhotra and Dr. R.C. Mittal. about 30 kg. Boora was found contained in a Petti (wooden box) for public sale. After disclosing his identity, the Food Inspector demanded a sample out of the Boora for analysis purpose. The petitioner refused to give the sample and fled away from his shop. This act of the petitioner is said to bring the act within the definition of the offence of preventing the "Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Government". Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has argued that there was a mere refusal on the part of the petitioner to give the sample and this act does not amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample. According to him, the Food Inspector derives the powers to take sample of any article of food from Section 10 of the Act. Under this section, a food Inspector has the power to take sample 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; and (iii) a consignee after delivery of any such article to him. The argument is that sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act would apply, if at all, to the circumstances of the present case. To prove this, the prosecution has to fulfil the requirement of the person from whom the sample is to be taken to be selling such an article.
(3.) THE next argument of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is discrepant and no definite conclusion can be reached.;