SUBRAMONIAN POTI, Ag. C.J.

Cri.R.P. 96 of 1980 came up in the first instance before T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. who referred it to a Division Bench and the Division Bench referred the matter to the Full Bench since a question to law of considerable importance touching the interpretation of Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is said to arise in the revision. The same question arises in Crl. Appeal No. 284 of 1979, which came up originally before Kader, J., and on reference by the learned Judge the Division Bench took up the matter. That too was referred to a Full Bench by the Division Bench. In that case a further question arises, namely, the interpretation of sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It was argued before the Division Bench that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1975 SC 2178 : (1975 Cri LJ 1868) such a question arose for consideration. The question that we have no decide in these cases may be formulated thus :

1. Is the obligation of the Food Inspector to take signatures of one or more person called to be present at the time action wa