GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision, the petitioner assails the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore, in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1996, who confirmed the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 16 (i) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000. 00, passed in C. C. No. 211 of 1991 by the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Gudur. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution according to the evidence let in during the course of trial is that the Sanitary Inspector (P. W. 1) went to the shop owned by the father of the petitioner and the petitioner did not allow him to enter into the shop even though P. W. 1 disclosed his identity and the purpose of his visit. Hence, the complaint. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. C. Praveen Kumar strenuously contended that the Food Inspector while visiting the shop owned by the father of the petitioner, did not follow the mandatory procedure of giving notice in Form VI, as contained in Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and as such, the entire case is vitiated. ( 4 ) IT is seen that under Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, when a Food Inspector takes sample of an article for the purpose of analysis he shall give notice of his intention to do so in writing in form VI. Thus, before collecting the samples, it is mandatory on the part of the Food Inspector to issue notice in Form VI. In the instant case, no such notice is given to the petitioner. But, the question is whether the Sanitary Inspector is required serve such notice to the petitioner in this case. If the purpose of the visit is only inspection of the shop, then in my considered view, issuance of notice in Form VI by the Food Inspector, as mandated in Rule 12, is not necessary. But, the question is whether the Sanitary Inspector is required serve such notice to the petitioner in this case. If the purpose of the visit is only inspection of the shop, then in my considered view, issuance of notice in Form VI by the Food Inspector, as mandated in Rule 12, is not necessary. However, if during the course of inspection the Food Inspector entertains any suspicion about the quality of the food being kept in the premises, or if he visits the premises basing on a prior information that some adulterated food is being sold in the premises, and if the Food Inspector wants to collect samples of such adulterated food article, then only the Food Inspector is required to issue notice in Form VI. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, in the panchanama drafted on 15-6-1991, it is stated that the purpose of visit of the Food Inspector is "to inspect the premises and collect samples". Similarly, in the complaint lodged by the Food Inspector, it is clearly stated that on 15-6-1991 at about 10. 00 A. M. , he along with his attender (P. W. 2) visited the shop of M/s. Rajasekhara General Stores, wherein the petitioner was carrying on business. In spite of disclosing his identity that he is the Food Inspector and visited the premises for the purpose of discharge of his official duties, the petitioner did not allow him to enter into the shop. The evidence of P. W. 1 is also to the same effect. He deposed that on that day, when he visited the shop, the petitioner was carrying on business and when he tried to inspect the shop of the petitioner, the petitioner caused obstruction and did not allow him to enter into the shop and inspect the food articles. Thus, from a reading of the mediators report, complaint and the evidence of P. W. 1, it is clear that the intention of P. W. 1 of visiting the shop was to inspect the same and not to collect the food samples from the shop. If, during the course of inspection, he entertains any doubt or suspicion as to the quality of the food article, then question of collecting samples thereof and issuing notice in Form VI arises. If, during the course of inspection, he entertains any doubt or suspicion as to the quality of the food article, then question of collecting samples thereof and issuing notice in Form VI arises. Admittedly, P. W. 1 visited the premises of P. W. 1 only for the purpose of inspection and at that point itself, the petitioner caused obstruction to P. W. 1, which in my considered view, is an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 16 (i) (c) of the Act. In the light of the above discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. ( 6 ) THE criminal revision case is accordingly dismissed.