Judgment :- 1. If a vendor refuses to acknowledge receipt of notice given by Food Inspector, does the vendor thereby prevent the Food Inspector in exercising his powers? If a vendor declines to affix his signature in the mahazar or other document prepared by the Food Inspector, does he prevent the latter from exercising powers? These questions need answers in this appeal filed against an order of acquittal. 2. Facts are these: A Food Inspector filed complaint against the respondent alleging offence under S.16(1)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). On 24-3-1983, the Food Inspector visited the "Ice Cream Parlour" in which the respondent was working as a salesman. The owner of the shop was then absent. The Food Inspector purchased 900 grams of ice cream and the respondent received its price from the Food Inspector. Form VI notice was issued and the respondent wrote his name and date on the counterfoil thereof in token of acknowledgment. But the respondent declined to affix his signature on the counterfoil, even after being asked to do so by the Food Inspector. Further, the respondent did not issue a voucher (for receipt of price of the food article) in the manner required by the Food Inspector. Another allegation is that the respondent refused to put his signature in a mahazar which Food Inspector prepared while taking sample and that he dissuaded two persons (who were called as witnesses) from signing the said mahazar. Another criminal case was filed against the respondent and proprietor of the Ice Cream Parlour on the strength of the report of the Public Analyst in which the sample was reported to be adulterated. The fate of that criminal case has no relevance in this case. 3. S.16(1)(c) of the Act makes it penal if a Food Inspector is prevented from taking sample. S.16(1)(d) penalises the act of preventing a Food Inspector "from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under the Act". In this case, the Food Inspector has no case that the accused prevented him from taking a sample. So the question of penalty for preventing a Food Inspector "from taking a sample" does not arise here. To hold the respondent guilty it must be found that he prevented the Food Inspector "from exercising any other power conferred on him". In this case, the Food Inspector has no case that the accused prevented him from taking a sample. So the question of penalty for preventing a Food Inspector "from taking a sample" does not arise here. To hold the respondent guilty it must be found that he prevented the Food Inspector "from exercising any other power conferred on him". So, the prosecution can succeed only by proving that the respondent prevented the Food Inspector from exercising "any other power conferred on him by the Act". 4. S.10 of the Act is titled as "Powers of Food Inspectors". Such powers include power to take sample of any article of food, power to send the sample for analysis; power to prohibit the sale of any article of food in the interest of public health etc. He has also power to inspect any place where food article is manufactured, or stored for sale etc. and seize such food articles which appear to him to be adulterated. Among the powers enumerated in the said section, Food Inspector is required to pay to the person concerned the cost of food article. The powers enumerated in the Section do not include a power to secure voucher from the person to whom cost of the food article is paid. Of course there is nothing wrong if be gets such a voucher. But if a vendor refuses to give voucher, it cannot be said that he prevented the Food Inspector from exercising the powers. S.11 is given the title "procedure to be followed by Food Inspectors". The legislature must have intended that what is prescribed in that section shall not be construed as "powers" to be exercised, for otherwise there is no particular reason to give such a title to S.11 when S.10 is titled as "powers of Food Inspectors". Under S.11(1)(a) the Food Inspector is required to give notice in writing, when be takes sample, of his intention to have it analysed. Sub-clause (b) says that the Food Inspector shall "take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken". R.16 provides for the manner in which the signature of such person is to be taken. If a vendor declined to affix his signature, can it be said that the vendor prevented the Food Inspector from discharging his powers? R.16 provides for the manner in which the signature of such person is to be taken. If a vendor declined to affix his signature, can it be said that the vendor prevented the Food Inspector from discharging his powers? The answer cannot be in the affirmative, particularly in view of the proviso to S.11(1) (b) which reads thus: "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 impressions, as the case may be. in lieu of the signature or thumb impression of such person." The proviso sufficiently indicates that refusal of the vendor to affix his signature, when so demanded by the Food Inspector, wilt not amount to prevention of his powers being exercised, even if it is assumed that taking signature of such person is part of the powers of the Food Inspector. 5. In Mussadli Lal v. State (AIR 1959 All. 753) a single judge of the Allahabad High Court held that 5.11 of the Act does not deal with the powers of the Food Inspector, but it prescribes the procedure to be followed by him. The learned judge drew a line of distinction between "powers" and "duties" of a Food Inspector. In the opinion of the learned judge "by refusing to accept the price of the sample, the vendors might prevent the Inspector from performing his duty, but certainly they do not prevent him from exercising a power, the legislature never intended to punish a vendor for refusing to accept the price". In Devisaran v. State (1974 Crl. LJ 865) another single judge of the same High Court, though without reference to the earlier decision has adopted the view that if a Food Inspector tenders the cost of the article to the person from whom the sample is taken there is full compliance of S.10(3) irrespective of the fact that the latter declined to accept the price. In Tulsiram v. State of M.P. (1980 FAJ 170), Madhya Pradesh High Court took the same view. The above decisions support the conclusion that mere refusal to give a voucher for the price paid, or refusal to sign the document prepared by the Food Inspector will not amount to prevention of exercise of powers of the Food Inspector. In Tulsiram v. State of M.P. (1980 FAJ 170), Madhya Pradesh High Court took the same view. The above decisions support the conclusion that mere refusal to give a voucher for the price paid, or refusal to sign the document prepared by the Food Inspector will not amount to prevention of exercise of powers of the Food Inspector. Hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Appeal is dismissed.