BISHAN DASS TELU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 16 (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for preventing a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Act. The report that the Inspector made to the Municipal Committee merely stated that the petitioner had refused to give the sample even on payment. That is not the same thing as prevention which need not have an element of physical obstruction but it does involve some act which hinders an Inspector from taking a sample.

(2.) In Cort v. The Ambergate, Nottingham and Boston and Eastern junction Railway Company,1851 20 QB 480 at p. 465 (A), it has been held that "to prevent" does not mean only an obstruction by physical force but it may involve a threat. But in the present case neither physical force nor threats were used. It has been pointed out to me that in the charge also the word used is not "preventing" but "refusal" and this was the question put to the accused. In my opinion therefore the prosecution have not made out their case and I would allow this petition, set aside the conivction and acquit the petitioner. The bail bond shall stand cancelled.

(3.) Revision petition allowed.