Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 01.03.2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara (for short 'the appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 32/97 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-accused and confirmed the judgment dated 18.12.1996 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara (for short 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 653/1996 whereby the learned trial court convicted the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 7/16 (1) (c) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to six month's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default thereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.08.1987, the Food Inspector inspected/visited the shop of the petitioner Ramesh Chandra and asked for purchase of 'Besan (gram flour) which was 80-90 Kg. in a sealed Katta and two open 'Tin' for taking sample of the same from the shop of petitioner. The Food Inspector checked the 'Besan' and found the same to be adulterated. He called the manufacturer and when he arrived there he denied to have sold the said 'Besan' to the shop-Keeper. Accused-petitioner Ramesh Chandra did not allow the inspector to take sample and put down the shutter of the shop and thus prevented him from taking any sample. It was also alleged that Ramesh Chandra's brother Bal Ram also came there who actually put down the shutter of the shop. As the Inspector could not take the sample, a complaint was prepared and consent of the authorities was obtained and after that complaint was filed against the petitioner and his brother Bal Ram.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the judgments passed by both the courts below and the material available on record.

4. The learned trial court summarily adopted the trial to be taken as that of a warrant trial case and the trial was proceeded against the petitioner and co-accused Bal Ram and charges were framed against the appellant for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(c) of P.F. Act. Prosecution examined Om Dutt Sharma (PW-1), Hira (PW-2), Abdul Hamid Shekh (PW-3), D.P. Arya (PW-4) and Dr. K.C. Bapna (PW-5). The accused-petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against him. In his defence, accused examined himself as DW-1 and the statement of other defence witness Ishaq Mohd. (DW-2) was also recorded.

5. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 18.12.1996, acquitted the co-accused Bal Ram for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1) (c) and (d) but convicted the petitioner-accused Ramesh Chandra for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(c) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced as aforesaid.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused argued that complaint was filed for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but there is no evidence that accused persons prevented the Food Inspector for taking sample or prevented him for exercising any other power conferred on him under the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that Dr. Abdul Hamid Shekh (PW-3) the then Deputy CMHO, in his statement stated that the shop-keeper refused to give sample and closed his shop. D.P. Arya (PW-4) in his statement stated that accused gave sample to the Food Inspector but as per prosecution story the accused denied to give any sample. Both the above said witnesses were declared hostile.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused further argued that the provisions contained under Section 16(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are mandatory as it states that all the offences that fell under Sub-sect