Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kapur, J.
Bishan Dass Telu Ram
Versus
State
Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 1956,
Decided On : JANUARY 9, 1957
Prevention - Food Adulteration Act - The court held that 'preventing' does not necessarily require physical obstruction but involves any act that hinders an Inspector from taking a sample, which may include refusal without physical force or threats.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 16 (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for preventing a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorized by the Act. The Inspector's report stated that the petitioner had refused to give the sample even on payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not prove their case as the act of 'preventing' was not established, and the word used in the charge was 'refusal' rather than 'preventing'. The court allowed the petition, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the petitioner.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner had prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorized by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted 'preventing' under the Act to include any act that hinders an Inspector from taking a sample, not limited to physical obstruction or threats.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the petitioner.
Kapur, J.
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 LJ QB 460 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. Revision petition allowed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
