This revision has been filed by the applicant against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment awarded to him.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that the accused was selling sweets at his shop. The Food Inspector (hereinafter called the Inspector) found that the 'Laddus' which the accused was selling were coloured. He asked the accused to give him a sample of 'Laddus' for being examined by the Public Analyst, but the vendor refused. When the Inspector advanced to take the Laddus for sample he was threatened. The Inspector thereafter prepared a memorandum to the effect that the vendor had refused to sell Laddus to him. He then kept waiting for ten or fifteen minutes. The vendor thereafter closed his shop and went away. A complaint was lodged on these facts and the vendor was put to trial for preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample of food.

3. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector and one Balwant who had signed the memorandum prepared by the Inspector. The trial court believed the prosecution version and convicted the accused and sentenced him as mentioned above. Appeal filed by the accused was dismissed. He has now come up in revision to this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the vendor-accused had prevented the Inspector from taking the sample. His contention is that unless the vendor had done some overt act to prevent the Inspector from taking the food for sample, the vendor could not be held to have prevented him from taking the sample.

5. Coming to the questions of fact, it is fully established that the accused had exposed for sale Laddus which were coloured. The Inspector had asked for a sample and the vendor had refused to give it, and had left the shop after closing it, ten or fifteen minutes after the demand had been made by the Inspector. Both the courts below have believed the testimony. I have also looked into the evidence and found no reason to disagree with the findings of the courts below regarding these facts.

6. As regards the allegation that he vendor had threatened the Inspector and had by that threat stopped him from taking the Laddus, the evidence of the Inspector is not corroborated by the witness Balwant. The complaint also does not specifically mention the threat. The words are. "I again asked him to give the sample and proceeded to take sample of that coloured Laddu from the shop. But the above-noted Shri Ram refused and prevented me from taking sample of that coloured Laddu. He told me to leave the shop. I waited for 10-15 minutes. He closed the shop and went anywhere after closing the shop". Balwant, P.W. 2 has not stated anything about the Inspector's advancing towards the Laddus for taking sample himself, nor has he stated anything about the alleged threat. The trial court has observed that even if Balwant's testimony was not taken into consideration the sole testimony of the Inspector could be relied up. Neither of the two courts has given any positive finding that the threat was extended, though it appears that the courts below had believed the statement of the Food Inspector in its totality. In the question put to the accused under Section 342, Cr. P.C. also no explanation was asked about this alleged threat. It would thus be better to give the benefit to the accused and hold that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the accused had threatened the Inspector and by that threat positively stopped the Inspector from taking the sample. I accordingly proceed to decide the case on the basis that the accused had, on demand, refused to give sample and had then gone away closing the shop.

7. Section 16(1)(b) of the Act makes any person liable to punishment who prevents the Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Act. Section 10(a)(1) gives