Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Food Adulteration Case Due to Prevention of Sample Taking. Disappearance of Shopkeeper Constitutes Prevention Under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by the appellant against his conviction under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for preventing a Food Inspector from taking a sample of dhania from his grocery shop. The incident occurred on August 27, 1976, when the Food Inspector visited the appellant's shop and demanded a sample. The appellant left the shop under the pretext of passing urine and did not return for about one and a half hours, during which the Food Inspector and accompanying officials waited. The trial court convicted the appellant, and this conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and later by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant contended that mere disappearance did not amount to prevention of the Food Inspector from taking a sample. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant's actions constituted prevention as per the provisions of the Act, and no additional overt act was necessary to establish the offence. The court referenced previous judgments that supported this interpretation, confirming the conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Food Inspector - Disappearance from shop - Appellant's act of leaving the shop prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(c) - The appellant's disappearance after the sample was demanded constituted an offence under the Act, as no other overt act is necessary to establish prevention. Held that the conviction was justified (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant's disappearance from the shop constituted prevention of the Food Inspector from taking a sample.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Law Points

  • Prevention of Food Adulteration
  • Food Inspector's powers
  • Prevention of sample taking
  • Criminal Procedure Code
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1983 LawText (SC) (07) 10

Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 1981

1983-07-11

Varadarajan, A., Fazalali, Syed Murtaza Thakkar, M.P.

1983 AIR 878, 1983 SCR (3) 355, 1983 SCC (3) 452, 1983 SCALE (1) 686

Uma Datta, T.C. Sharma, A.D. Malhotra, R.N. Poddar

Rajinder Pershad

State of Haryana

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for preventing a Food Inspector from taking a sample.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to overturn his conviction and sentence.

Filing Reason

The appellant contended that his disappearance did not constitute prevention.

Previous Decisions

The trial court and appellate courts had upheld the conviction.

Issues

Whether the appellant's disappearance constituted prevention of the Food Inspector from taking a sample.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that mere disappearance did not amount to prevention. The respondent contended that the appellant's actions clearly prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's disappearance from the shop constituted prevention of the Food Inspector from taking a sample, as no additional overt act was necessary to establish the offence under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant's disappearance from the shop for a long time amounted to prevention of the Food Inspector from taking a sample. No other overt act is necessary to constitute the offence.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, leading to this appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 16(1)(c)
  • Criminal Procedure Code: Section 313
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Order Setting Aside Election of Councilor for Non-Disclosure of Criminal Cases. Failure to Disclose Pending Criminal Cases in Affidavit Under Section 5A of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Public Servants for Criminal Breach of Trust and Falsification of Records. Conviction under Section 409 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Affi...