( 1 ) THE question in this appeal by the State against an acquittal under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 is whether by refus- ing to give a sample of milk and leaving the shop a person can be said to have prevented the Food Inspector from taking the sample It is also in evidence that the responded raised his hand. But there is no evidence to show whether the raising of the hand amounted to a threat or an assault. We can therefore leave it out of account. But the Food Inspector has got powers under sec. 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to take a sample. Mere refusal therefore would not amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample. There is also no evidence of any threat as was in the case of in Cord v. The Ambergate Nottingham and Boston and Eastern Junction Railway Company (1851) 20lj QB 460 at p. 465. Whether the Food Inspector was prevented or not would depend on the case in order to constitute the offence. There must be a physic obstruction or a threat or an assault. Mere refusal to give a sample would not amount to such prevention. Nor would merely leaving a shop we do not know for what purpose amount to prevention.

( 2 ) THE acquittal appeal is therefore dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

.