Skip to content


Bishan Dass Telu Ram Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Food Adulteration
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 1126 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1957P& H99; 1957CriLJ656
ActsPrevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 16
AppellantBishan Dass Telu Ram
RespondentState
Appellant Advocate V.K. Ranade, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Har Parshad, Assistant Adv. General
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredIn Cort v. The Ambergate
Excerpt:
.....in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed..........of an offence under section 16(b) of the prevention of food adulteration act for preventing a food inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the act. the report that the inspector made to the municipal committee merely stated that the petitioner had refused to give the sample even on payment. that is not the same thing as prevention which need not have an element of physical obstruction but it does involve some act which hinders an inspector from taking a sample. 2. in cort v. the ambergate, nottingham and boston and eastern junction railway company, (1851) 20 lj qb 460 at p. 465 (a), it has been held that 'to prevent' does not mean only an obstruction by physical force but it may involve a threat. but in the present case neither physical force nor threats were used. it has.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kapur, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 16(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for preventing a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Act. The report that the Inspector made to the Municipal Committee merely stated that the petitioner had refused to give the sample even on payment. That is not the same thing as prevention which need not have an element of physical obstruction but it does involve some act which hinders an Inspector from taking a sample.

2. In Cort v. The Ambergate, Nottingham and Boston and Eastern Junction Railway Company, (1851) 20 LJ QB 460 at p. 465 (A), it has been held that 'to prevent' does not mean only an obstruction by physical force but it may involve a threat. But in the present case neither physical force nor threats were used. It has been pointed out to me that in the charge also the word used is not 'preventing' but 'refusal' and this was the question put to the accused. In my opinion therefore the prosecution have not made out their case and I would allow this petition, set aside the conivction and acquit the petitioner. The bail bond shall stand cancelled. Revision petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //