JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran dated 19-6-73 whereby the learned lower court has acquitted the accused-respondent Junjhar Singh of the offence under s. 16(1) (b) & (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short `the Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are : that Food Inspector Hardayal was posted in P.H.C., pipaliya and Gopalsingh was his peon. Jaitaran town falls in the jurisdiction of P.H.C., Pipaliya. It is alleged that on 7.6.75 at about 8 a.m. Food Inspector Hardayal accompanied by his peon Gopalsingh went to the lane of Sonars in the town of Jaitaran where it is alleged that accused Junjharsingh was found selling milk in one container container carried on his bicycle. When the Food Inspector informed him that he will like to take sample of the milk from him, the accused told him that he may take out the container from the cycle and as soon as he took out the container from the cycle, he threw the milk on the ground and ran away without giving the sample. Te Food Inspector then prepared the mamos which were signed by Gopal Singh and Bhimraj and then after obtaining the requisite sanction, he challaned a case against the accused in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran from where it was transferred for disposal to the court of learned judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran. The accused was charged with the offence under s. 16(1)(b) and (c) of the act. 3. It was conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor before the learned lower court that no offence under s. 16 (1) (c) is made out and, therefore, the accused was acquitted of the said offence, So far as the offence under s. 16(1)(b) is concerned, the Food Inspector Hardayal has stated that on 7.6.75 at about 8 A.M., when he informed the accused that he will like to take sample of the milk from him and filled in Form No. IV, the accused refused to give the sample of the milk and threw away the milk and ran away. He has been controverted by his peon Gopalsingh who has stated that actually Form No. IV was filled after the accused left the place of he occurrence. He has been controverted by his peon Gopalsingh who has stated that actually Form No. IV was filled after the accused left the place of he occurrence. According to Gopalsingh, no occasion arose for offering Form No. IV to the accused and further no occasion arose for the accused to refuse its delivery. Actually , this form was filed after the accused left the place of the occurrence. Motbir Bhimraj has stated that when he arrived at the place of the occurrence, the milk has already been spilled on the ground and Food Inspector Hardayal's peon Gopalsingh was having a verbal altercation with the accused. He does not know whether Hardayal was present at the place of the occurrence at that time. All these memos wee proved by Food Inspector Hardayal. No Food Inspector can take sample without giving a person notice in writing then and there of his intention to have a commodity analysed to the person from whom he wants to take the sample. This is contained in S. 11 (1) of the Act. Rule 12 of the Rules Provides that for the purpose taking the sample, the Food Inspector should intimate in writing in Form IV to the person concerned that he wants to take the sample of the Food article, which is being sold by him. The notice in writing is imperative. In this respect, I place reliance on Parmeshwar Pd. Choudhary v. State (1964 (1) Cr. LJ-605) . This is what has been precisely prevailed with the learned lower court. 4. Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor has relied on a decision of the M.P. High Court in Jagannath v. State of M. P, (1977 Cr. LJ 974.) In the case, the Food Inspector suspecting the milk to be adulterated took the accused to the Municipal Office. While the Inspector visited the Office, the accused disappeared leaving the milk container there. It was held that the Inspector was not prevented from taking the sample. This case has no application to the facts of present case. 5. Dr. Bhandawat further placed reliance on a decision of the Gauhati High Court in J.L. Roy v. Nepal Chandra (1974 Cr. L.J. 575) wherein it has been held that for preventing the Food Inspector from taking sample, physical obstruction or threat or assault is not necessary. This is not the case here. 5. Dr. Bhandawat further placed reliance on a decision of the Gauhati High Court in J.L. Roy v. Nepal Chandra (1974 Cr. L.J. 575) wherein it has been held that for preventing the Food Inspector from taking sample, physical obstruction or threat or assault is not necessary. This is not the case here. Actually, this is a case of non-compliance with the provisions of s. 11(1) of the Act and r. 12 of the Rules whose compliance is imperative. L J. Roy's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. 6. Looking to these facts and circumstances of case, I find no force in this appeal, and it is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******