JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. 1. THESE are two connected revisions. Cr. Rev. no. 1423 of 1979 has been filed by Ram Bahadur, while Cr. Rev. no. 1364 of 1979 has been filed by Machhan Khan. Both these revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. APPLICANT Ram Bahadur was convicted and sentenced to 6 months' R. I, and a fine of Rs 1000/- under Sac. 16 (1) (a) (i), of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, while Machhan Khan was convicted and sentenced to 6 months' R. I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Sec. 7 (1)/16 (l)(a) (i) and to 3. months' R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 500/-under Sec. 7 (iii) read with Sec. 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Their conviction and sentences were maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge Rampur vide his order dated 10th August, 79. Hence these connected revisions. According to the prosecution case, the Food-Inspector saw the applicant Machhan Khan carrying milk in a drum near the octroi post of Milak, District Rampur at about 8 A. M. on 16th April, 1977. He purchased 7.50 M. Grams of milk from him, divided it into three parts, and poured each part in an empty small bottle. The three bottles were sealed on the spot. At the time of sealing of the bottles, Machhan Khan informed the Food Inspector that the milk really belonged to one Tahir, who had given it to him for sale. When, the process of sealing of bottles was going on, appellant Ram Bahadur arrived at the spot. He asked Machhan Khan not to put his thumb impression on the wrapper of the sealed bottles and incited him to run away. He also threatened the Food Inspector. As a result of this instigation and interference by Ram Bahadur, Machhan Khan ran away without fixing his thumb marks on the wrapper of the bottles. Machhan Khan did not possess any licence for selling milk. One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solids by 10 per cent and hence adulterated. After obtaining sanction, the applicants have been prosecuted and convicted, as above. Machhan Khan did not possess any licence for selling milk. One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solids by 10 per cent and hence adulterated. After obtaining sanction, the applicants have been prosecuted and convicted, as above. It may also be mentioned here that Tahir was also made a co accused in the case, but he was acquitted by the trial court on the findings that the milk belonged to Machhan Khan and not to Tahir. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in both the revisions and also the counsel for the State. I have also perused the relevant papers and the record of the case. 4. COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the applicant Machhan Khan has argued that the sanction accorded in the instant case is invalid on the ground that there is some over-writing in the date of the sanction. He submits that the form of sanction is a printed one and that the Food Inspectors normally carry these forms in their pockets and subsequently they are filled-in to show that the sanction has been accorded. No such point has been agrued in any of the courts below. No such ground of revision has been taken even in this court. The basis on which the sanction has been attacked in the grounds of revision is that the sanction is "on a typed paper and the blank columns are filled up which clearly shows that the Sanctioning Authority did not apply his mind while granting sanction for the prosecution". This ground is not borne out from the sanction (Ex. Ka-6) which is not a typed form but a printed form. It has been mentioned in the sanction that the Sanctioning Authority has perused the relevant papers in connection with the case before according his sanction. The Food-Inspector has also stated that the relevant papers were sent to the Sanctioning Authority for obtaining sanction. No suggestion was put to the Food Inspector in cross examination that he had filled-in the blank forms fictitiously, which he -was carrying in his pocket. The Food Inspector has identified the signatures of the Sanctioning Authority. No suggestion has been put to him to indicate that there was any interpolation or forgery in the sanction. No suggestion was put to the Food Inspector in cross examination that he had filled-in the blank forms fictitiously, which he -was carrying in his pocket. The Food Inspector has identified the signatures of the Sanctioning Authority. No suggestion has been put to him to indicate that there was any interpolation or forgery in the sanction. Pure questions of fact, which have never been agitated at any stage earlier, can not be allowed to be agitated in revision. In these circumstances, I do not find any substance in this submission. On the merits both the courts below have concurrently held the prosecution case established against Machhan Khan. They have appraised the evidence on the record, both, oral and documentary and have given good reasons for holding him guilty. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision with the impugned order convicting the applicant Machhan Khan. On behalf of Ram Bahadur, learned counsel has advanced an argument that on the facts established in the case, Ram Bahadur accused can not be convicted under the provisions of Section 16 (1) (d). In order to consider this submission, we shall have to refer to the relevant sections under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 5. SECTION 10 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act gives the details power of the Food Inspector. Sub-section (1) of SECTION 10 authorises the Food Inspector to take a sample of any article of food from any person selling such article or any person conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee, after delivery of any such article to him. He is further authorised to send such sample for analysis to the Public Analyst for the local area within which such sample has been taken. 6. SUB-section (2) of Section 10 authorises a Food Inspector to enter and inspect any place where any article of food is manufactured,, or stored for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of Food for sale, or exposed or exhibited for sale or where any adulterant is manufactured or kept, and to take samples of such article of food or adulterant for analysis, provided it is not a primary food, not intended for sale as such food. Sub-section (4) of Sec. 10 permits the Food Inspector to seize and carry away or keep in the safe custody of the vendor any article of food which appears to him to be adulterated or mis-branded. 7. UNDER sub-section (5) of Section 10, the Food Inspector is empowered to break open the door of any premises where any article of food is kept for sale, in the presence of the owner or any other person incharge, if he refuses to open the package or door when called to do so by the Food Inspector. 8. UNDER sub-section (6) of Section 10, the Food Inspector is also authorised to seize any adulterant found in possession of the manufacturer or distributor or dealer in any article of food for the possession of which he is unable to give any satisfactory account. He is also authorised thereunder to seize the documents and the books of accounts in connection therewith. Sub-section (7) of Section 10 directs the Food Inspector to call for one more person to be present at the time and to obtain their signature when he takes action under Clause (a) of subsection (1) or sub-section (2) or subsection (4) or sub-section (6) of Sec. 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 9. IT is clear from the aforesaid analysis of Sec. 10, that the Food Inspector has been given several powers apart from the powers to take samples of articles of food from any person, found selling such article, for the purposes of sending it to analysis to the Public Analyst. Section 16 of the Act provides for penalties to be imposed upon the accused committing various offences under the Act. In this connection, it would be relevant to quote as under; 16-Penalties : Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1-A), if any person- (c) Prevents a food inspector from taking a sample as authorised by this Act; or (d) Prevents a food inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act; or he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Sec. 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months..............with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees". 10. 10. IT is thus clear that Sec. 16 (c) and (d) refers to the exercise of different powers, with which the Food Inspector is invested under Sec. 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Subsection (c) deals with a situation, where the Food Inspector is prevented from taking a sample as authorised by this Act and sub-section (d) refers to situation where the Food Inspector is exercising other powers conferred on him by the Act. In the instant case, the Food Inspector was taking the sample of milk from the accused Machhan Khan, when he was prevented from doing so by Ram Bahadur. The applicant's counsel has contended that according to the prosecution case the sample had already been physically taken by the Food Inspector, divided into three parts, filled in three bottles, and sealed. It was at this stage that Ram Bahadur appeared and told Machhan Khan not to thumb mark the wrapper of the sealed bottles and threatened the Food Inspector. The submission is that the taking of the sample had been completed by the Food Inspector, when Machhan Khan reached the spot. As such Sec. 16 (c) would not be applicable. In my opinion there is no merit in this submission. 11. SEC. 16 (c) refers to a situation where the obstructionist prevents a food inspector from taking sample, as authorised by the Act. The words, as authorised by the Act, are significant. They are not redundant nor exuberant. They are meaningful. Every word in the statute according to the ordinary principles of interpretation must be given its due importance. It is correct that SEC. 10 (1) (a) (i) authorises the Food Inspector to take a sample of an article of food from any person selling such article, but the procedure by which an article of food is to be taken by the Food Inspector has been prescribed in SEC. 11 of the P. F. Act which reads as follows : Section 11. Procedure to be followed by the Food Inspectors : (1) When a Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall- (a) give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he lias taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under SEC. 14-A; (b) except in special cases provided by rules under this Act, divide the sample then and there into three parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed; Provided that where such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression the Food Inspector shall call upon one or more witnesses and take his or their signatures or thumb impression as the case may be, in lieu of the signature or thumb impression of such person ; " 12. IT is clear from the aforesaid section that while taking the sample specific procedure has to be followed by the Food Inspector and that includes the taking of the thumb impression of person from whom the sample has been purchased, after the same has been divided, marked and sealed, and fastened in such manner as its nature permits, if the Food Inspector does not follow this procedure laid down for taking a sample for analysis, then the taking of the sample would be vitiated in law and no conviction of the applicant can be based thereon. Therefore, the procedure prescribed for the taking of the sample is an integral part of the exercise of such power by the Food Inspector. He is authorised to take a sample of food under Sec. 10 of the Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sec. 11 of the Act. Both Sees. 10 and 11, therefore, have to be read together in conjunction with each other. Hence the taking . of sample AS authorised by this Act" would mean the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector according to the procedure prescribed under the Act. The evidence is to the effect that Ram Bahadur not only instigated Machhan Khan not to thumb mark the wrapper and to run away, but he also mishandled the Food Inspector and he further instigated the witnesses of the locality not to co-operate with the Food Inspector, but to run away. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the offence committed by the applicant was one under Sec. 16 (1) (c) of the P.F. Act and not one under Sec. 16 (1) (d) of the Act. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the offence committed by the applicant was one under Sec. 16 (1) (c) of the P.F. Act and not one under Sec. 16 (1) (d) of the Act. I, therefore, set aside the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sec. 7/16 (1) (d) of the Act and convict him instead for the offence under Sec. 16 (1) (c) of the P. F. Act. He is sentenced to 6 months' R. I, and a fine of Rs. 1000/- on this count. In the result, therefore, Criminal Revision no. 1364 of 1979 is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant Machhan Khan for the offence for which he hAS been found guilty are maintained. 13. CR. Rev. No. 1423 of 1979 is also dismissed with the modification that while the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sec. 16 (1) (d) of P. F. Act is set aside ; he is instead convicted for the offence under Sec. 16 (1) (c) of the P. F. Act and sentenced as above.