RAJINDER PERSHAD versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 355 · Decided: 11-07-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
355 
RAJINDER PERSHAD 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
July 11, 1983 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au. A VARADARAJAN AND M.P. THAKKAR JJ.] 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 16(1) (c)-Food 
Inspector sought t~ take Sample of Foodstuff-Disappearance of shopkeeper from , 
Shop-Whether amounts- to prevention from taking sampllf. 
A Food Inspector visited ihe appellant's grocery shop and demanded a 
sample of dhania for analysis. Leaving the shop on a false pretext, the / 
appellant did not return to the shop for quite a long time. Thereupon after 
following the requisite procedure the Food Inspector took a sample of dhan'ia 
in the absence of the appellant. 
On a charge under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulte-
ration Act, 1954 that the appellant had prevented the Food Inspector from 
taking a sample of the article of food, the trial court convicted and sentenced 
him. The conviction and sentence were .affirmed on appeal. The High Court 
djsmissed his cri11_1inal ~evision petition. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that mere disappearance from 
E 
the shop after the sample was demanded by _the Food In.spcctor, without any-: 
thing more; did not constitute an offence of prevention of the Food Inspector 
fro11_1 taking a sample. 
Dismissing the appeal. 
HELD : The appellant had been rightly convicted and sentenced under 
s.161(1) (c) of the Act ... The appellant's disappearance from the shop for a 
long time, amounted to prevention of the Food Inspector from taking a sample 
in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. No other overt 
act is necessary to constitute the offence. (361 F-H] 
Municipai Board. 
Sambhal v. Jhaman Lat, 
AIR. 1961 All. 
103; 
Mam Chand v. State, 1971. Crl. L. J. 1772; Habib Khan v. State of Madhya 
Pradesh, 1971 M.P. L. J. 883, approved. 
Jagannath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1977 Cr!. L.J. 974; Narain Prasad 
v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 Rajasthan 162 overruled. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 615 
ofl981. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
356 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1983] 3 S.C.R. 
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 6th May, 1981 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal 
Revision No. 562 of 1979. 
Uma Dalla, T.C. Sharma and A.D. Malhotra for the Appellant. 
R.N. Poddar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VAR~DARAJAN. J. This appeal by special leave is directed against 
the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana. High C:ourt, dismissing 
Criminal Revision Case No. 562 of 1979 which was filed by the appel-
lant against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon 
who affirmed the judgment of.the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon 
sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for six months and 
a fine of Rs. 1,000 under s. 16 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act, 1954 as amended from time to time. 
We dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and 
sentence on 5.4.1983 for re.asons to be givin later. We hereby give 
the reasons. 
The charge against the appellant was that when the Food 
Inspector, Gurgaon, Sant Lal Anand (P.W.2) went to the appellant's 
grocery shop at Farrukh Nagar at about 4 p.m. on 27.8.1976 ·he pre-
vented P.W.2 from taking a sample of dhania from the stock kept for 
sale by slipping away from the shop under some pretext. The case of 
prosecution was that when the Food Inspector (P.W.2) ·visited the 
appellant's grocery shop accompained ·by Dr. Aggarwal, Medical 
Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Farrukh Nagar (P.W.1) 
and Dr. Yadav, Chief Medical Officer (Health), Gurgaon (P.W.3). 
the appellant was found to have stored 6 kgs .. of dhania for sale in 
his shop. P.W. 2 disclosed his identity to the appellant and de-
manded a sample of the dhania for analysis and sought to serve the 
notice Ex P /B and tendered Rs. 4.80 as the price of 600 gms. of 
dhania asked for. The appellant went away from the shop under the 
pretext of passing urine without accepting the notice Ex. P/B or the 
sum of Rs. 4.80 tendered by P.W.2 and he did not come back to the 
shop though P.Ws: 1 to 3 waited there for about 1-} hours. There-
after P.W.2 took a sample from the shop in the absence of the appel-
lant and prepared the spot memo Ex. P/A in the presence of P.Ws. I 
and 3 and subsequently filed the complaint Ex: P/C in the Court of 
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon against the appellant for 
contravention of s.16 (l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.