JUDGEMENT:- Respondent No. 1 was convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Poona, for an offence under Section 16(1)(b) and (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of the fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. He preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, allowed the appeal and directed the acquittal of the respondent. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal and is filed by the Food Inspector, Poona, Municipal Corporation, who was the complainant in the proceedings. A few facts leading to this prosecution are as follows:- 2. On 25-5-1971 at 5.00 p.m. the appellant as Food Inspector visited Lucky Restaurant and found the accused at the counter engaged in selling various food articles. There was ice-cream for sale in the freeze. The appellant disclosed his identity and demanded the ice-cream for sale for analysis by offering the price. As the accused refused to sell the same for analysis, the appellant called panchas and in their presence drew up a panchanama. He filed a complaint charging the accused with the commission of an offence under Sec. 16 of the Food Adulteration Act, as the accused by his refusal to sell ice-cream prevented him from taking a sample as authorised by the Act and also prevented him, from exercising the powers conferred on him by or under the Act. 3. At the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and in his statement he substantially admitted the facts alleged by the prosecution, but according to him he had never refused to give the sample of ice-cream to the Food Inspector. It is not necessary to set out here the various, other facts alleged by him. This appeal, can be, disposed of on consideration of a few admitted facts. 4. It appears that the appellant asked the accused to give him a sample of the ice-cream. There is some controversy about the fact whether the appellant opened the freeze or the servant of the accused was responsible for opening it. But the appellant has admitted that, the servant of the accused had taken, out the ice-cream weighing about 900 gms. The quantity was weighed. There is some controversy about the fact whether the appellant opened the freeze or the servant of the accused was responsible for opening it. But the appellant has admitted that, the servant of the accused had taken, out the ice-cream weighing about 900 gms. The quantity was weighed. But the only accusation of the appellant is that the accused refused to sell this quantity to the appellant. This, appears to be the position from the evidence of the appellant, the evidence of panch witness Salunke and the contents of the panchanama. The question to be considered is whether any offence or the offence under Section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act is committed by the accused. 5. Mr. Agarwal, who appears for the appellant, submitted that these admitted facts will constitute an offence under Section 16(1) (b) and (c) of the Food. Adulteration Act. Under Section 16(1)(b), a person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to 6 years and with fine, which, may not be less than Rs. 1,000/- if he prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Act or prevents a Food Inspector from exercising any other powers conferred on him by or under tins Statute, it is a serious offence. Like any other criminal offence the prosecution will have to establish by convincing evidence, the essential ingredients of the crime. 6. Mr. Agarwal submitted that, this is a case where the accused had prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Act. Mr. Agarwal referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the Food Inspector and the panch. The Food Inspector, according to the English Notes of evidence, has made the following statement in his examination-in-chief : "............ The accused refused to give-sample of ice-cream for analysis. I requested him on and often in the presence and other persons but he refused to give sample. In cross-examination he has given the following admission :- "The accused told me to open the freeze and see the ice-cream. So his servant opened the freeze. The servant was weighing 900 grams ice-cream as I was demanding. Then I came to the accused and demanded the same by sale. I was to prepare the receipt in case of such sale. So his servant opened the freeze. The servant was weighing 900 grams ice-cream as I was demanding. Then I came to the accused and demanded the same by sale. I was to prepare the receipt in case of such sale. The accused said that he would not give it to me on sale." As the statements made by him appeared to be somewhat ambiguous, I have referred to the Marathi record of his evidence. In Examination-in-chief the following statement is recorded:- In the cross-examination he admits :- Substantially the evidence of panch Salunke is to the same effect. If these are the facts, then it cannot be said that the accused prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample. 7. Realising this position Mr. Agarwal submitted that at any rate the accused will be guilty of an offence under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act. Mr. Agarwal submitted that the Food Inspector is required to purchase the sample for the purpose of analysis. As the Food Inspector was obstructed in the discharge of his duties when he tried to purchase the sample, the accused must be held guilty of the offence. Mr. Agarwal relies on Section 10 of the Act. Section 10(1)(a)(i); provides :- "10(1) A Food Inspector shall have power (a) to take sample of any article of food from (i) any person selling such article." But this section must be read with cl. (3) of the same section which may be reproduced here: "(3) Where any sample is taken under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2), its cost calculated at the rate at which the article is usually sold to the public shall be paid to the person from whom it is taken." If these provisions are read together, then it is clear that the Food Inspector can always take samples for analysis and pay the price of the article which may be calculated by him, according to the rate at which the said article is sold to the public. It is clearly implicit in this provision that the payment of price is not to depend upon the price quoted by the person from whom the same is taken. In the present case the only allegation against the accused is that he refused to sell the article as a sample for analysis to the Food Inspector. It is clearly implicit in this provision that the payment of price is not to depend upon the price quoted by the person from whom the same is taken. In the present case the only allegation against the accused is that he refused to sell the article as a sample for analysis to the Food Inspector. He has not alleged any obstruction to the taking of the sample of ice-cream from the freeze. Admittedly the required quantity weighing 900 grams was taken out by the servant of the accused from the freeze and offered to the Food Inspector. It was further submitted that the Food Inspector should have proceeded to exercise his other powers under the relevant provisions of the Act after taking the sample. There is no doubt that the Food Inspector demanded only 900 grams of Ice-cream for analysis. There is some discrepancy in the English version and the Marathi version about the quantity of ice-cream demanded by the Food Inspector. Under Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the Food Inspector is required to take a certain quantity of sample. Rule 22 prescribes the quantity of sample to be sent to the public analyst for analysis as specified below :- SI. No. Articles of food Approximate to be supplied 22 Ice-cream and mixed ice-cream 3. ......... grams 8. Under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act, a Food Inspector taking a sample of food for analysis has to divide the sample into three parts. He has to mark, seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits. Under Section 11(1)(c) he has to deliver one of the parts to the person from whom the sample has been taken. Under clause (ii) he has to send another part for analysis to the public analyst and under clause (iii) he has to retain the third part for production in case any legal proceedings are taken or for analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under Sub-Section (2) of Section 13, as the case may be. In view of these provisions, the Food Inspector must have demanded 900 grams of ice-cream. There is no provision anywhere in the Act which compels the person from whom the sample is taken to sell the same to the Food Inspector. In view of these provisions, the Food Inspector must have demanded 900 grams of ice-cream. There is no provision anywhere in the Act which compels the person from whom the sample is taken to sell the same to the Food Inspector. No doubt, it is obligatory on the Food Inspector under Section 10(3) of the Act, where any sample is taken, to calculate its cost at the rate at which the article is usually sold to the public. In the present case the Food Inspector should have accepted the quantity of ice-cream which was offered to him and then proceeded to exercise his other powers under the relevant provisions of the Act. He should have calculated the price and offered the same to the person from whom the sample was taken. Assuming, he had done so and then the person had refused to accept the money, then the question may have arisen whether that constituted any obstruction to the exercise of powers of the Food Inspector under relevant provisions of the Act. But it is not necessary to decide the question in the present case. 9. The accused has not objected to the taking of the sample and had, in fact, offered 900 grams of ice-cream to the Food Inspector. Facts found disclose no offence under Section 16(1)(b)(c) of the Act. 10. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.