( 1 ) THE applicants were convicted for the offence of Section 16 (1) (b) and (c) (i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act by a Judicial Magistrate, first class. The case against them was they sell milk, that on the day of the occurrence a Food Inspector took a sample of milk from them, that they refused to accept the notice given to them by the Inspector in compliance with the provisions of Section 11 (1) (a), that they refused to accept one part of the sample given to them by the Food Inspector in compliance with the provisions of Section 11 (1) (c) (i ). that they refused to accept the price of the sample tendered to them by the Food Inspector in compliance with the provisions of Section 10 (3) and that they refused to sign the receipt for the price and the labels put on three bottles in which three portions of the sample were kept. There is sufficient evidence to prove these facts and the findings of fact cannot he challenged in revision. A portion of the sample of the milk was sent for chemical analysis and was found to be of unadulterated milk. If a person sells adulterated food, he is guilty under Section 16 (a); if a person "prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by this Act", he is guilty under Section 16 (1) (b), and if a person "prevents a Food Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act" he is guilty under Section 16 (1) (c ). The trial Court was of the view that by the acts mentioned above the applicants committed offences of Section 16 (1) (b) and (c); I do not understand how in the operative part of its judgment it added (i) to (c ). When the matter went up in appeal before the Sessions Judge he took notice of the allegations that the applicants refused to accept the notice and the price and refused to sign the three bottles; but be seems to have been under the impression that the applicants were convicted for selling adulterated milk. He wrongly mentioned in the beginning of his judgment that they had been convicted under section 16 (1) (a); he also committed the blunder of stating in his judgment that the sample of milk was found by the Public Analyst to be adulterated, and lastly when he came to deal with the sentence imposed by the trial Court, he said that food adulteration must be dealt with severely. It is difficult to understand how the appellate Court committed the mistake o thinking that the applicants were convicted under Section 16 (1) (a ). It said nothing about the offences of Section 16 (1), (b) and (c); it did not at all discuss whether the above-mentioned acts proved to have been done by the applicants constituted the offences of Section 16 (1) (b) and (c ).

( 2 ) THERE is no question of the offence of Section 16 (1) (a); the applicants have not been convicted of it. The offence of Section 16 (1) (b) also has not been committed, because the applicants are not alleged to have prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Act; the evidence admittedly is that he did take a sample of the milk. The refusal of the applicants to receive the price of the sample and the notice and to sign the receipt and the labels does not amount to their preventing the Inspector from taking a sample; those acts are to be done by the applicants after the Inspector has taken a sample. The evidence is that when the Inspector asked for a sample, the applicants at once gave him a sample. The third offence of Section 16 (1) (c) also has not been committed by the applicants, because they have not prevented the Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under the Act. The powers that are conferred upon a Food Inspector are mentioned in Section 10; it is headed as "powers of Food Inspectors". The section has several sub-sections, but all sub-sections do not deal with powers of a Food Inspector; some deal with his powers and some with his duties. There is a distinction between "power" and "duty"; "power"