Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR. J.: The short question of law which arises in this appeal relates to the construction of cl. 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order, 1958. This question arises in this way.

2. The respondent was charged with having committed an offence punishable under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in that on February 9, 1960, he was found storing 178 Mds. of paddy in his godown without any licence in violation of cl. 3 of the said Order. The case against the respondent was that on February 9, 1960, his godown was searched and 178 Mds. of paddy was found stored in it. This fact was not denied by the respondent though he pleaded that the paddy which was found in his godown was meant for the consumption of the members of his family who numbered fifteen. He also pleaded that out of the stock found in his godown 40 mds. of paddy belonged to Lalito Singh, his relation. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bishenpur, who tried the case of the respondent did not believe his statement that the stock was meant for the consumption of the members of his family. He, however, believed the evidence of Lalito Singh that 40 Mds. out of the stock belonged to h