H. Swarup, J. :- The Notified Area Committee, Jaunpur, has filed this appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent Maluk Das Gupta of the offence under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in appeal filed against the order of the trial court convicting him of the offence.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 2-11-1966, at about 3 p.m., the Food-Inspector. Sri Rajni Kant Agnihotri found Maluk Das Gupta selling mustard oil at his shop without a licence. Suspecting that the oil may be adulterated he demanded a sample of the mustard oil but Maluk Das Gupta refused to give the sample.

3. The defence was that the accused was neither selling mustard oil nor did he prevent the Food-Inspector from taking the sample. The visit of the Food-Inspector was itself denied. The witnesses were alleged to have given false evidence as they were under the influence of the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee.

4. The trial court came to the conclusion that the accused had exhibited for sale at his shop mustard oil and by refusing to give sample thereof had prevented the Food-Inspector from taking the sample. On these findings it convicted the accused under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act and imposed a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1500 and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge held that the accused had caused no physical obstruction to the Food-Inspector's taking of sample of the mustard oil. He also did not believe the prosecution case that the accused was selling or exhibiting for sale mustard oil at his shop. On these findings he held that no offence had been committed by the accused as he could not be said to have prevented the Food-Inspector from taking sample under S. 10(1)(a) of the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant assailing the judgment of the lower appellate court, contended that the finding arrived at by the lower appellate court to the effect that the accused was not selling mustard oil at his shop was liable to be reversed as it was not based on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record. He has further submitted that mere refusal to give sample when demanded by the Food-Inspector will amount to preventing the Food-Inspector from taking the sample within the meaning of Sec. 16(1)(b) of the Act. In support of this contention the learned counsel has relied on the case of Municipal Board v. Jhammanlal, AIR 1961 All. 103

6. It is not, however, necessary in this case to decide whether the finding of the first appellate court that the accused was not selling mustard oil is correct or not, as even on the assumption that the accused was 'selling' oil by exhibiting it for sale, he cannot be convicted the reason being that the evidence in the case does not establish that the accused had prevented the Food-Inspector from taking the sample.

7. Section 10 of the Act casts no duty or obligation on the vendor of an article of food to tender or offer the sample of the article to the Food-Inspector. It confers, on the other hand, a power on the Food-Inspector to take sample of any article of food from any person selling the same. Mere refusal to give sample or refusal to comply with the request of the Food-Inspector to sell him the goods for sample cannot amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Act does not make refusal to give sample an offence. It only makes a person liable to penalty if he prevents a Food-Inspector from taking the sample as authorised by the Act.

The word 'prevent', according to the Webster's New English Dictionary, as relevant for this case means "to frustrate, to deprivate of power of acting, operating, proceeding, etc.,; to ward off, circumvent; to hinder the progress, or fulfilment." The phrase "prevent from" is used in se