ORDER Vayas. J. - 1. This revision application by the above named applicant is directed against his conviction and sentence under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The prosecution case against him as found proved by the Court below was that on 28-10-1971 the accused was carrying milk for sale on the Ravindranath Tagore Marg of the city of Indore. He had distributed milk to certain persons and while he was on the road the Food Inspector Vishnu Chandorkar (P.W.1) stopped him and asked him to give a sample of the milk but the accused refused to give. The Food Inspector was, in these circumstances, according to the prosecution, prevented from taking sample of the milk carried by the accused for being sold. The Food Inspector, there• fore, prepared a Panchnama (Ex. P. 1) and then filed a complaint against the applicant for the aforesaid offence. The defence of the applicant was that the milk carried by him was not meant for sale; that he was not a milk vendor and that the milk which he was carrying in two containers was meant for his home consumption. The learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rejected this defence and have found the applicant guilty of preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample or the milk. These findings of the Court below are challenged in this revision application. 3. The only question which has been raised by the applicant in this Court is as to whether on the facts appearing in the prosecution evidence the accused can be said to have been prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample of the milk. Having considered the evidence on record, I am of the view that the charge against the applicant cannot be said to have been established even on the allegations made by the prosecution witnesses. 4. In his examination-in-chief Vishnu Chandorkar (P.W. 1) has stated that the accused did not permit him to take a sample of the milk carried by him from one of the tin containers in which milk was being carried by the applicant. While being cross-examined the witness admitted that after the milk contained in the milk contail1er was sturred and sample was being taken the accused refused to give a sample. While being cross-examined the witness admitted that after the milk contained in the milk contail1er was sturred and sample was being taken the accused refused to give a sample. He further admitted that the refusal made by the applicant was only oral and that there was no other overt act committed by the accused, which could obstruct him from taking the Sample from the container. Lastly, he admitted that since the accused refused to give the sample, he did not take it. The question is whether on these facts the accused can be said to have prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample. In my opinion, on these facts, the accused cannot be held guilty of having prevented the Food Inspector from taking the sample of milk which, under the Act, he was authorised to take from the accused. 5. The word 'prevent' has not been defined in the Act but the dictionary meaning of this word is 'to preclude, to stop, keep or hinder effectually, to keep from coming to pass, to provide before hand against the occurrence of something, to render an act or event impracticable or impossible by anticipatory action, to preclude etc, etc. From this definition, it becomes clear that physical obstruction is not an essential attribute of the word 'prevent' and that prevention can be brought about by some act or omission whereby the person prevented is hindered from performing an act or exercising his power. If in the light of this definition, the facts of the present case arc considered, then it would be clear that the Food Inspector simply asked the accused to give sample and he also simply refused orally to give that sample. Inspite or this oral refusal, the Food Inspector was free to take the sample after paying the price to the applicant and if the price offered was not to be accepted, the Food Inspector could still take the sample by seizing the milk, container, which he was authorised to seize under section 10(4) of the Act and take all such other necessary steps which he was authorised to take to get the sample analysed according to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. In para 4 of the statement, the Food Inspector has admitted that except expressing the oral refusal to give sample the accused did not cause any other obstruction in his taking the sample of milk carried by him. He also admits that simply because of oral refusal by the accused; he did not take the sample which he wanted to take. If the accused applicant had done something more than expressing his refusal or had been guilty of any other act or omission by which the Food Inspector would have been precluded from taking the sample or had caused any other hinderance or obstruction and thereby making it impracticable for the Food Inspector to take the sample, then it could be said that the accused was guilty of prevent ting the Food Inspector from taking the sample of milk. The facts of this case, however, completely negative the charge levelled against the applicant that he prevented the Food Inspector from taking the sample. 6. There is not an iota of evidence to the effect that Food Inspector offered the price to the accused; that he made any attempt to take the sample of milk and in that process he was prevented by the accused and that the accused did any other act or omitted to do something, which made it impracticable for the Food Inspector to take the sample of milk. There was thus no case of the Food Inspector being prevented from taking the sample. 7. In the light of the view that I have taken of the facts in this case, I am of the view that the accused in this case cannot be held guilty for the offence of preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample of milk. The conviction of the accused, in my opinion, was not justified. 8. This revision application is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the accuced and the sentence or six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- awarded thereunder are hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. Fine, if paid by the applicant, shall be refunded to him.