JUDGMENT Rajeshwar Singh, J. - The Magistrate convicted one Krishna Kumar under section 10 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine two months further simple imprisonment was ordered Krishna Kumar filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Against that judgment the present revision has been filed. 2. In prosecution story was that the Food Inspector was taking simple from the shop of one Taqmil Khan. The revisionist has his sweetmeat shop in the neighbourhood of the shop of Taqmil Khan. The revisionist left his shop and came at the shop of Taqmil Khan and insisted that sample be taken from shop. The Food Inspector replied that after he had Hen the sample from Taqmil Khan he would take sample from the shop of the revisionist. Feeling enraged one of the three bottles of the sample was thrown on the ground and broken by the revisionist. When Food Inspector tried to prevent it he was beaten and abused and the revisionist did not permit to complete the remaining proceedings of sample being taken. These allegations do amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking the sample as he is authorised to do. Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides that a person, who prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1000/-. The aforesaid allegations of the prosecution amount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample and minimum sentence has been Karded. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed the following grounds: 1. The man, from whose shop sample was being taken, has not been produced as a witness. 2. Prosecution has not proved as to what common interest the revisionist had with the person from whose shop sample was being taken. 3. Even if the whole story is accepted it will be an offence under section 332 I.P.C. and not under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. The Food Inspector has not produced any medical report showing injuries on his person. 5. 3. Even if the whole story is accepted it will be an offence under section 332 I.P.C. and not under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. The Food Inspector has not produced any medical report showing injuries on his person. 5. All the witnesses produced are departmental witnesses and one of them Khubram has given evidence in 50 cases. 6. There is discrepancy between the statements of witnesses regarding place of occurrence. 7. The Food Inspector did not ask the revisionist to leave and not to insist on his sample being taken. When three bottles of samples were prepared and only one was broken, then why two samples were not procured or sent to the Public Analyst. 9. The revisionist has ill will the Food Inspector. 10. Why the first information report was not lodged at the police station ? 11. These Food Inspectors take money and implicate only those persons who do not pay the same. 12. Sentence awarded is too severe. 4. I have considered these points and except the question of sentence all are points relating to facts and they are concluded by the judgment of the first appellate court. The man, whose sample was being taken, would not depose for the prosecution when the revisionist was obviously helping him. So there was no point in producing that man as a witness. Nobody can know as to what sort of common interest the revisionist had with Taqmil Khan whose sample was being taken. However, it is obvious that the revisionist was his neighbour and he would be interested that his neighbour may be saved and by creating disturbance his sample too might not be taken. When the Act complained of is an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act there is nothing wrong if proceedings have been taken under this without taking the same under section 332 I.P.C. The courts below have pointed out that there was no ostansible injury and so there was no question of medical examination. It is also in the judgment of the court below that the persons present there were asked to give evidence but they refused to give their names. This is also probable because they must be shop keepers who would not like to depose against their neighbour and the purchasers, who might be there, would not have liked to be dragged in the affairs of others. This is also probable because they must be shop keepers who would not like to depose against their neighbour and the purchasers, who might be there, would not have liked to be dragged in the affairs of others. So there was no option but to produce only departmental witnesses and when they are relied upon by the Courts of fact there is no question of discarding their evidence in this Court. The departmental persons may appear as a witness in a number of other cases but it will not make their evidence unreliable. The discrepancy regarding place of occurrence has been considered by the courts below. When the action of the revisionist proved by evidence was clearly aimed at preventing the Food Inspector from taking sample it is immaterial that the Food Inspector did not ask the revisionist to leave. There was no point in sending the sample to Public Analyst when the proceeding of faking of sample was not allowed to be completed as appears from the judgment of lower court. There does not appear from the judgment of lower court any such enmity between the Food Inspector and the revisionist that it my be said that the revisionist was implicated falsely. The first information report was lodged at the police station though the case was started on a complaint. This court cannot presume that Food Inspector takes money and the revisionist has been implicated because he did not make payment to the Food Inspector. 5. As regards sentence, it appears from section 16 that it is the minimum sentence which has been awarded. Section 20-AA says that Probation of Offenders Act does not apply to offences under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This may be because no chance can be taken by society with a man whose anti-social operations, disguised as a respectable trade imperial numerous innocents. These economic offences committed by white-collor criminals are unlikely to be dissuaded by to probationary process. When a I man interferes with taking of sample from another shop he does not only protect his own activities regarding adulteration but he also protects others and encourages them to indulge in adulteration. So there seems to be no reason to award a sentence less than the minimum. 6. When a I man interferes with taking of sample from another shop he does not only protect his own activities regarding adulteration but he also protects others and encourages them to indulge in adulteration. So there seems to be no reason to award a sentence less than the minimum. 6. The result is that this revision has absolutely no force and it merely I question findings of fact which have been properly arrived at by the courts p below. The revision is dismissed.