A person who prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is guilty of an offence under S.16(1)(b) of the Act.

1. Gurdit Singh and Ajaib Singh of Jaspat and Surjan Dass of Verka, district Amritsar, have been convicted under S.16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each and in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of six months, both by the Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Against their convictions, they have come to this Court by means of this revision petition.

2. On 7th of August, 1966, at about 9 A.M., the petitioners were going on their cycles, each carrying two Valtohas of milk, near the crossing in the Adda Bazaar, Tarn Taran, the Government Food Inspector, Baldev Raj, stopped them and after having examined the specific gravity of the milk, he gave a notice in Form VI to each one of them and also filled up the receipt forms for the purchase of the milk. They refused to accept the notice and allow him to take any sample of the milk. Dr. Gurbax Singh, who was also tried along with the petitioners and later on acquitted by the learned Magistrate, after having been given the benefit of doubt, appeared on the scene and is alleged to have helped the petitioners in offering resistance, to the Food Inspector in seizing the sample. A truck is alleged to have come near the spot at that time. The petitioners then put their Valtohas thereon and left the place along with milk. Subsequently, the Food Inspector reported the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran and then filed a complaint in Court. The occurrence was witnessed by a number of persons including Sardari Lal, Teja Singh and Amar Chand, peon of the Food Inspector.

3. In their statements under S.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners denied the allegations made against them by the prosecution and stated that they had been falsely implicated. According to Gurdit Singh and Ajaib Singh, the Government Food Inspector was annoyed with them, because they had refused to give the illegal gratification to him on a monthly basis. Surjan Dass also claimed that a false case had been lodged against him. The petitioners, however, did not produce any defence evidence.

4. Both the Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution version and convicted the petitioners as mentioned above.

5. The first argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners was that the learned Magistrate had not given proper opportunity to the petitioners to produce the defence evidence. The statements of the petitioners were recorded on 20th of October, 1966 and thereafter they were asked to bring their witnesses on the next hearing i.e. 24th of October, 1966. On that date, the learned Magistrate closed the defence and did not give any further opportunity to the petitioners to produce their evidence. By this procedure, they had been greatly prejudiced.

6. No such plea was taken by the petitioners either before the learned Additional Sessions Judge or before the Judicial Magistrate. Even in the grounds of appeal, taken before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, no mention had been made of this point. It is stated by the Magistrate in his order that all the three petitioners offered to produce defence evidence, but they did not bring any on the day fixed for the purpose and consequently, no further opportunity was given to them. As I have said, no grievance was made against the closing of their defence by the learned Magistrate either in the grounds of appeal filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, or in the arguments before him. This plea obviously seems to be an after-thought.

7. The next contention of the learned counsel was that the petitioners were taking milk separately on their cycles and they had refused to allow the Government Food Inspector to take samples of that milk. Consequently, the offence committed by each of the petitioners was dist