Judgment :- 1. Accused in CC No. 32 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Punalur is the petitioner in Crl. RP No. 552 of 1983 and accused in CC No. 31 of 1982 before the same court is the petitioner in Crl. RP No. 399 of 1983. They were prosecuted by the Food Inspector, Punalur Circle for offences punishable under S.16(1)(c) and (d) for having contravened the provisions of S.10(1)(a) and (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate found both of them guilty. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/ each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week each. Against the conviction and sentence in CC No. 32 of 1982 there was Crl. Appeal No. 40 of 1983 and against the conviction and sentence in CC No. 31 of 1982 there was Crl. Appeal No. 39 of 1983 before the Sessions Court, Quilon. Both the appeals were dismissed and therefore the accused have come up in revision. 2. The accused in both the cases are employers of Ayoor Ksheera Vyavasaya Co-operative Society No. Q-15-D. to C. No. 32 of 1982 the allegation was that the accused who is an employee of the society refused to sell milk and went away on a bicycle even though there was balance milk with him for gale to the Food Inspector. In CC No. 31 of 1982 the allegation is that the Food Inspector went to the society and demanded milk offering Form 6 notice, but without selling milk the accused closed the society and went away. 3. In both the cases Ext. P1 is common and it is the notification appointing the Food Inspector. Ext. P2 in CC No. 32 of 1982 is the mahazar prepared by the Food Inspector at the spot attested by pw. 3 who is an independent witness. pw.1 is the Food Inspector and Pw.2 is his peon. The independent witness examined as pw.3 also supported the prosecution case in chief-examination. But he gave a different version in cross-examination and therefore in re-examination he was declared hostile and cross-examined. 4. In CC No. 31 of 1982 Ext. P2 is Form 6 notice issued to the accused, but not accepted by him and Ext. P3 is the mahazar. The independent witness examined as pw.3 also supported the prosecution case in chief-examination. But he gave a different version in cross-examination and therefore in re-examination he was declared hostile and cross-examined. 4. In CC No. 31 of 1982 Ext. P2 is Form 6 notice issued to the accused, but not accepted by him and Ext. P3 is the mahazar. The case of the Food Inspector is that in that case even though independent witnesses were present, they refused to attest the mahazar. In CC No. 31 of 1982 the Food Inspector and his Peon alone were examined. 5. In CC No. 32 of 1982 two defence witnesses were examined Dw.1 is Thankachan who conducts a tea shop in his bunk It was in front of the bunk of Dw.l, while the accused was selling milk to Dw.l, that the Food Inspector demanded milk from the accused and the accused went away in the bicycle without selling milk. dw 2 in that case is the Secretary of the Co-operative Society. In CC No. 31 of 1982 there are three defence witnesses. Dw.l is the Secretary of the Society. dw.2 is Thankachan who was Dw.l in the other case. dw.3 is another shop owner. 6. The defence version in both the cases is this:- Since it was by the end of December the Food Inspector wanted to take some cases for statistical purposes. Therefore, on 29-12-1981 at about 10 a.m. he demanded milk from the accused in CC No. 32 of 1982 when he was going on a bicycle with a can. He had actually no milk with him because the entire milk was sold away. Therefore the Food Inspector wanted milk atleast from the society. The accused in CC No. 32 of 1382 agreed to oblige him if there is balance milk in the society. Therefore they together went to the society. Unfortunately the entire milk in the society was also exhausted by sale. The Food Inspector therefore wanted milk to be procured from somewhere else. The accused in CC No. 31 of 1982 refused to oblige. Therefore two false complaints were filed by the Food Inspector. 7. According to the Food Inspector the incident which is the basis of CC No. 32 of 1982 took place at 8.05 a.m. on 29-12-1981 and the incident in the other case at 9 a.m. on the same day. 8. Therefore two false complaints were filed by the Food Inspector. 7. According to the Food Inspector the incident which is the basis of CC No. 32 of 1982 took place at 8.05 a.m. on 29-12-1981 and the incident in the other case at 9 a.m. on the same day. 8. The Magistrate, in both the cases, elaborately considered the evidence and accepted the versions given by the Food Inspector and the peon. The evidence tendered by the defence witnesses was in accordance with the defence version mentioned above. The Magistrate, for valid reasons discarded the defence in both the cases. The Sessions Judges have also considered the items of evidence in detail and agreed with the Magistrate is the findings that the accused in both the cases were proved beyond doubt to have committed the offences punishable under S.16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 9. Even though the learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended before me that the courts below did not appreciate the evidence properly in both the cases, I am not satisfied of the argument. There is absolutely nothing wrong in accepting the evidence of the Food Inspector and his peon in preference to the evidence of the defence witnesses whose testimonies were found to be artificial and unconvincing. 10. The main argument of the counsel was that even if the allegations in the complaint and the evidence of the Food Inspector and the peon are accepted as correct, no offence punishable under S.16(1)(c) could be taken as established. His argument was two-fold. The first ground is that there must be service of Form 6 notice which is absent while action was taken at the time of the incident which resulted in CC No. 32 of 1982. The second ground is that in order to constitute an offence under S.16(1)(c) there must be physical prevention of the Food Inspector. 11. Under S.10 of the Act the Food Inspector is having the power to take samples of food. The second ground is that in order to constitute an offence under S.16(1)(c) there must be physical prevention of the Food Inspector. 11. Under S.10 of the Act the Food Inspector is having the power to take samples of food. S.11 says that when Food Inspector takes samples of Food for analysis be shall give in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under S.14 A. The question of issuing Form 6 notice provided under S.11 will arise only when the Food Inspector is successful in discharging his function of purchasing or taking the sample. In a case where the seller does not co-operate with the Food Inspector and either goes away from the spot with the food article and/or closes the shop and goes away without permitting the Food Inspector to take the sample, the question of issuing Form 6 notice may pot arise. In such a situation the tact that Form 6 notice was not issued by itself cannot be taken as a successful defence. So far as CC No. 31 of 1982 is concerned, Form 6 notice has been issued, but it was not accepted. In CC No. 32 of 1982 an occasion for the issue of Form 6 notice did not arise because under the guise of selling sample to the Food Inspector the accused went away with the can of milk on a bicycle. In such a circumstance the defence that Form 6 notice was not issued is not available to the accused in CC No. 32 of 1982. 12. Under S.16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act what is made punishable is preventing a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorised by the Act. Under S.16(1)(d) what is made punishable is the prevention of the Food Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under the Act. In order to constitute an offence there need not be physical prevention or attempt to prevent the Food Inspector from purchasing or taking the sample by the accused. Under S.16(1)(d) what is made punishable is the prevention of the Food Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under the Act. In order to constitute an offence there need not be physical prevention or attempt to prevent the Food Inspector from purchasing or taking the sample by the accused. If the accused consciously refused to co-operate with the action of the Food Inspector and thereby on account of his acts or omissions made the action on his part impossible in any way, it will amount to prevention. The Food Inspector is statutorily entitled to discharge his functions and such powers are given to him in an attempt to eradicate the social menace of injury to the health and life of citizens. It is the duty of every seller to co-operate with him in purchasing and taking the sample. Any conscious act or omission to interfere with that power will amount to prevention, which term, though not defined in the Act, has a wide meaning. Obstruction by physical force alone is not the amplitude of prevention. 13. There need not necessarily be use of force or show of force for that purpose. Non compliance of the legitimate demands or requests made by the Food Inspector in the discharge of his functions and nonco¬operation with him for that purpose may also in given cases come within the ambit of the offence if those actions have the effect of preventing the Food Inspector from discharging the functions which he legitimately wanted to exercise. The main consideration in such cases is whether the accused wanted the Food Inspector to be prevented in some manner consciously from discharging his functions, whether such attempt was effective or not. Non-acceptance of Form 6 notice, refusal to receive the price and give the sample or refusal to make the attestation or put the signatures in the documents prepared by the Food Inspector also may in given cases amount to prevention coming within the ambit of the penal provisions depending upon the facts and circumstances. 14. It is obvious that the provision making prevention itself an offence was with the purpose of facilitating actions of the Food Inspector anticipating that there could be possibilities of his actions being successfully prevented by interested persons. Courts are to give effect to that object and purpose. 14. It is obvious that the provision making prevention itself an offence was with the purpose of facilitating actions of the Food Inspector anticipating that there could be possibilities of his actions being successfully prevented by interested persons. Courts are to give effect to that object and purpose. If something is done by the accused preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample or making his job impossible or difficult that will be sufficient. Sometimes it may be obstruction by physical force, sometimes it may be threat or at other times, it may be destruction of the food or otherwise making it non-available. It can also be making the task impossible by creating a row. Act of refusal accompanied by conduct and demeanour may also sometimes amount to prevention. Mere inaction without creating difficulties to the Food Inspector in taking the sample may not ordinarily amount to prevention unless it is having the effect of making the job difficult or impossible. The word "prevent" connotes some positive or negative volitional act or omission on the part of the accused so as to effectively stop or hinder the Food Inspector from taking the sample. Each case will depend upon its own facts and circumstances on which on the basis of the above principles the court will have to decide whether there was prevention or not. No hard and fast rules could be laid down. 15. The mere fact that the Food Inspector was notable to get the attestation of independent witnesses or the further fact that such witnesses turned hostile in the box are not material. There is no provision which says that the uncorroborated evidence of the Food Inspector or his subordinate should not be acted upon. It is for the court to decide whether the evidence tendered by the Food Inspector or his subordinate without corroboration could be acted upon or not. So far as this case is concerned both the courts below analysed the evidence and found the depositions of the Food Inspector and his subordinate acceptable. The defence evidence was found to be artificial and unconvincing. There is absolutely nothing wrong in the courts having accepted the evidence. 16. So far as this case is concerned both the courts below analysed the evidence and found the depositions of the Food Inspector and his subordinate acceptable. The defence evidence was found to be artificial and unconvincing. There is absolutely nothing wrong in the courts having accepted the evidence. 16. What is proved by the evidence is that in one case the accused went away with the available milk without selling sample to the Food Inspector or without permitting him to take the sample after observing the necessary formalities. In the other case the same effect was achieved by closing down the shop and going away. The ultimate result of the actions of the accused in both cases is that the Food Inspector was not able to get the sample for being analysed. That means they have successfully utilised the opportunity of avoiding possible conviction for having exposed for sale and sold adulterated milk. There cannot be any dispute regarding the fact that these results were achieved by the conscious actions on the part of the accused. Evidently the actions of the accused amount to offences for which they were convicted by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. As regards sentence also there is no necessity for interference because the courts below awarded only the minimum punishment provided by law. Both the Crl. Revision Petitions are therefore dismissed.