GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) THE point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether mere refusal by the accused vendor to give sample to the Food Inspector would amount to preventing the Food Inspector from collecting sample under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. ( 2 ) THE facts that give rise to the determination of the above issue are as under. On 26-10-1994 at about 3. 35 p. m. the Food Inspector (P. W. 1) along with another Sanitary Inspector (P. W. 2) visited the business premises of the respondents and found the 1st respondent (A-1) carrying on business. During the course of inspection, P. W. 1 found 6 kgs. of areca nuts kept in an open tin along with other food articles. On enquiry, the 1st respondent informed that he purchased the said areca nuts from an unknown person without any valid bill. Thereupon when P. Ws. 1 and 2 asked the 1st respondent to sell 600 grams of the said areca nuts, the 1st respondent refused to do so stating that if samples of areca nuts are given for analysis, he has to face lot of problems. The Food Inspector thereafter filed the complaint under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act treating the said refusal of the 1st respondent as a contravention under the Act. The said complaint was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate and numbered as STC No. 65/1996. ( 3 ) DURING the course of trial, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-18. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the Court below held that mere refusal by the 1st respondent to give sample to the Food Inspector would not tantamount to prevention as envisaged under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act and accordingly acquitted the respondents. Hence, this appeal by the State. ( 4 ) HEARD both sides. ( 5 ) SECTION 16 of the Act deals with penalties for various contraventions under the Act. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 is relevant for the purpose of this case, which reads thus : "16. Penalties : (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1-A), if any person - (A) to (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 is relevant for the purpose of this case, which reads thus : "16. Penalties : (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1-A), if any person - (A) to (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorized by this Act; or (d) to (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives to the vendor a false warranty in writing in respect of any article of food sold by him, he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " from a reading of the above provision of law, it is clear that any person who prevents a Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorized by the Act, shall in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment and also fine. The question is whether the act of the 1st respondent herein would amount to an offence under Section 16 (1) (c ). As already noted, it is the case of the prosecution that the 1st respondent herein orally refused to give sample. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the 1st respondent physically prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample. Therefore, it cannot be said that the oral refusal of the 1st respondent amounts to an act of physical prevention or that he had literally prevented the Food Inspector from discharging his duties. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the 1st respondent physically prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample. Therefore, it cannot be said that the oral refusal of the 1st respondent amounts to an act of physical prevention or that he had literally prevented the Food Inspector from discharging his duties. Even if it is assumed that the Food Inspector is physically prevented from taking sample, the Food Inspector is not totally powerless in view of the provisions of Section 10. Section 10 which conferred powers upon the Food Inspector to take sample of any article of food from any person selling such article, reads thus : "10 Powers of food inspector :- (1) A food inspector shall have power - (a) to take samples of any article of food from - (I) any person selling such article; (ii) any person who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee; (iii) a consignee after delivery of any such article to him;and (B) to send such sample for analysis to the public analyst for the local area within which such sample has been taken; (C) with the previous approval of the Local (Health) Authority having jurisdiction in the local area concerned, or with the previous approval of the Food (Health) authority, to prohibit the sale of any article of food in the interest of public health. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-clause (iii) of clause (a), "consignee" does not include a person who purchases or receives any article of food for his own consumption. (2) Any food inspector may enter and inspect any place where any article of food is manufactured, or stored for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food for sale, or exposed or exhibited for sale or where any adulterant is manufactured or kept, and take samples of such article of food or adulterant for analysis : provided that no sample of any article of food, being primary food, shall be taken under this sub-section if it is not intended for sale as such food, (3) Where any sample is taken under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of sub-section (2), its cost calculated at the rate at which the article is usually sold to the public shall be paid to the person from whom it is taken. (4) if any article intended for food appears to any food inspector to be adulterated or misbranded, he may seize and carry away or keep in the safe custody of the vendor such article in order that it may be dealt with as hereinafter provided and he shall, in either case, take a sample of such article and submit the same for analysis to a public analyst : provided that where the food inspector keeps such article in the safe custody of the vendor he may require the vendor to execute a bond for a sum of money equal to the value of such article with one or more sureties as the food inspector deems fit and the vendor shall execute the bond accordingly. (4-A) Where any article of food seized under sub-section (4) is of a perishable nature and the Local (Health) Authority is satisfied that such article of food is so deteriorated that it is unfit for human consumption, the said Authority may, after giving notice in writing to the vendor, cause the same to be destroyed. (5) The power conferred by this section includes power to break open any package in which any article of food may be contained or to break open the door of any premises where any article of food may be kept for sale : provided that the power to break open the package or door shall be exercised only after the owner or any other person in charge of the package or, as the case may be, in occupation of the premises, if he is present therein, refuses to open the package or door on being called upon to do so, and in either case after recording the reasons for doing so : provided further that the food inspector shall, in exercising the powers of entry upon, and inspection of any place under this section, follow, as far as may be, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to the search or inspection of a place by a police officer executing a search warrant issued under that Code. (6) any adulterant found in the possession of a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, any article of food or in any of the premises occupied by him as such and for the possession of which he is unable to account to the satisfaction of the food inspector, and any books of account or other documents found in his possession or control and which would be useful for, or relevant to, any investigation or proceeding under this Act, may be seized by the food inspector and a sample of such adulterant submitted for analysis to a public analyst : provided that no such books of account or other documents shall be seized by the food inspector except with the previous approval of the authority to which he is officially subordinate. (7) Where the food inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4), or sub-section (6), he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signature. (7-A) Where any books of account or other documents are seized under sub-section (6), the Food Inspector shall, within a period not exceeding thirty days from the date of seizure, return the same to the person from whom they were seized after copies thereof or extracts therefrom as certified by that person in such manner as may be prescribed have been taken : provided that where such person refuses to so certify, and a prosecution has been instituted against him under this Act, such books of account or other documents shall be returned to him only after copies thereof or extracts therefrom as certified by the Court have been taken. (7-B) When any adulterant is seized under sub-section (6), the burden of proving that such adulterant is not meant for purposes of adulteration shall be on the person from whose possession such adulterant was seized, (8) Any food inspector may exercise the powers of a police officer under Section 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of ascertaining the true name and residence of the person from whom a sample is taken or an article of food is seized. (9) Any food inspector exercising powers under this Act or under the rules made thereunder who - (A) vexatiously and without any reasonable grounds of suspicion seizes any article of food or adulterant;or (B) commits any other act to the injury of any person without having reason to believe that such act is necessary for the execution of his duty;shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be punishable for such offence with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees but which may extend to one thousand rupees. " thus, under Section 10, the Food Inspector is having various powers viz. , to enter into the business premises, inspect the premises, take samples, seize the articles etc. In the event of any protest from the vendor, the Food Inspector, in exercise of any of the aforementioned powers conferred under Section 10 of the Act, can carry away such food article and thereafter send the sample to the public analyst. When the Food Inspector is specifically conferred with the power to seize any food article which is suspected to have been adulterated from any business premises, nothing prevented P. W. 1 in this case from lifting the sample from the business premises of the 1st respondent. Without exercising the power conferred on him under Section 10, P. W. 1 simply filed the present complaint alleging as if he was prevented by the 1st respondent from collecting a sample. As already stated above, the mere oral refusal by the 1st respondent does not amount to prevention and, therefore, the 1st respondent cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act. ( 6 ) AS identical question came up for consideration before this Court in Public Prosecutor v. T. Sambasiva Rao (1977) 1 APLJ (HC) 466 and this Court held thus (para 4 of Cri LJ) :"no doubt prevention does not necessarily mean obstruction by the use of force. A positive action in the form of physical obstruction, threat or assault may not be necessary to constitute an act of prevention. The concise Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of prevent as hinder, stop . A positive action in the form of physical obstruction, threat or assault may not be necessary to constitute an act of prevention. The concise Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of prevent as hinder, stop . It is stated in the shorter Oxford English Dictionary that prevent means to act in anticipation of or in preparation for a future event, to forestall, balk, or baffle by previous measures, to stop, keep, or hinder from doing something; to frustrate, defeat, bring to nought an expectation, plan etc. Preventing a Food Inspector from taking a sample means, the doing of some act by which it becomes impossible for the Food Inspector to take a sample. A mere verbal refusal to give the sample without anything more but leaving the Food Inspector to act as he liked and not thereby forestalling the Food Inspector from taking the sample if he choose to, does not tantamount to preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample. 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. In Public Prosecutor v. Doredia Ramayya (1972) 2 APLJ (HC) 64, the accused 1 and 2 not only verbally refused to give the sample but the second accused at the instance of the first accused locked the shop and both the accused left the place thereby effectively preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample of the food which was in the shop. In the instant case, the Food Inspector actually seized the Bindi containing the milk. He has also seized the cycle to which the Bindi was tied. The oral expression of the accused s unwillingness to give a sample of the milk could not and in fact did not in any way deter the Food Inspector from taking a sample of the milk in accordance with the Rules. There is nothing to show from the evidence available on record that the Food Inspector made any attempt to take a sample and the accused thwarted that attempt. "in view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Court below is perfectly justified in holding that the respondents have not committed any offence. I see no merit in the appeal. ( 7 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.