AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kamleshwar Nath, J.—We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The case need not detain us long because the point referred to the Full Bench is already covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Pershad v. State of Haryana 1983 AWC 789 : 1983 ACrR 429. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the act of a person selling an article, whose sample is sought to be taken by the Food Inspector, by slipping away from the shop under some pretext falls within the mischief of Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the person from whom sample was sought to be taken must be held to prevent the Food Inspector from taking the sample as authorised by the Act. The Supreme Court in para 11 of the report has held that the view expressed by this Court in the cases of Municipal Board, Sambhal v. Jhamman Lal 1960 AWR 490 reiterated in Mamchand v. State 1971 AWR 621 , is the correct view. The result is that the contrary view in the case of Municipal Board Vs. Maluk Das Gupta and Another, , and Chhedi Lal and Another Vs. Municipal Medical Officer of Health and Another, , is erroneous.
We may mention that on the question framed in the referring order of the learned Single Judge, the relevant provision of law should be Section 16(1)(c) and not 16(d) of the Act. Our answer to the question referred to the Full Bench therefore is as follows:
If a milk seller, leaving behind his can of milk open or sealed, runs away from the spot in order to avoid giving of sample, or a shop keeper runs away leaving his shop either open or locked with the object of avoiding giving of sample to the Food Inspector, such act amounts to preventing Food Inspector from taking sample as authorised by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act so as to attract the provisions of Section 16(1)(c) of the Act.
The papers may now be laid before Hon''ble Single Judge with the aforesaid answer.