State of Gujarat Vs. Laljibhai Chaturbhai - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/735247
SubjectCriminal;Food Adulteration
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided OnOct-05-1965
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 750 of 1964
Judge V.B. Raju, J.
Reported inAIR1967Guj61; 1967CriLJ376; (1966)GLR120
ActsPrevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 16(1)
AppellantState of Gujarat
RespondentLaljibhai Chaturbhai
Appellant Advocate G.T. Nanavati, Asst. Govt. Pleader
Respondent Advocate R.M. Vin, Adv.
Cases ReferredCort v. Ambergate
Excerpt:
- (1) the question in this appeal by the state against an acquittal under the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954, is whether by refusing to give a sample of milk and leaving the shop, a person can be said to have prevented the food inspector from taking the sample. it is also in evidence that the respondent raised his hand. but there is no evidence to show whether the raising of the hand amounted to a threat or an assault. we can, therefore, leave it out of account but the food inspector has got powers under s. 10 of the prevention of food adulteration act to take sample. mere refusal, therefore, would not amount to preventing the food inspector from taking a sample. there is also no evidence of any threat as was in the case of in cort v. ambergate, nottingham and boston and eastern junction railway co. (1851) (1851) 20 (1851) (1851) 20 lj qb 460 at p. 465. whether the food inspector was prevented or not would depends on the facts of the case in order to constitute the offence. there must be a physical obstruction or a threat or an assault. mere refusal to give a sample would not amount to such prevention. nor would merely leaving a shop, we do not know for what purpose, amount to prevention.(2) the acquittal appeal is, therefore, dismissed.(3) appeal dismissed.
Judgment:

(1) The question in this appeal by the State against an acquittal under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is whether by refusing to give a sample of milk and leaving the shop, a person can be said to have prevented the Food Inspector from taking the sample. It is also in evidence that the respondent raised his hand. But there is no evidence to show whether the raising of the hand amounted to a threat or an assault. We can, therefore, leave it out of account but the Food Inspector has got powers under S. 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to take sample. Mere refusal, therefore, would not amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample. There is also no evidence of any threat as was in the case of in Cort v. Ambergate, Nottingham and Boston and Eastern Junction Railway Co. (1851) (1851) 20 (1851) (1851) 20 LJ QB 460 at p. 465. Whether the Food Inspector was prevented or not would depends on the facts of the case in order to constitute the offence. There must be a physical obstruction or a threat or an assault. Mere refusal to give a sample would not amount to such prevention. Nor would merely leaving a shop, we do not know for what purpose, amount to prevention.

(2) The acquittal appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

(3) Appeal dismissed.