The word "use" in cl. 7 of the Control Order does not include mere non-use.

Judgement

SIKRI, J.: This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal of the State against the judgment of the Sessions Judge allowing the appeal of the respondent and acquitting him.

2. The respondent obtained permits under the Iron and Steel (Control0 Order, 1956 - hereinafter referred to as the Control Order - for about 28 tons of iron, including 6 tons of rods, 151/2 tons of joints and 2 tons of G. C. Sheets. He is alleged to have purchased these articles on the basis of the above permits between July 1957 and March 1958. The permits were obtained on three applications made by the respondent. Only two applications are in the printed record. The first application is, dated May 23, 1957, and is addressed to the Provincial Iron and Steel Controller, Kanpur, through the District Magistrate, Deoria. In this application the respondent stated that he was a political sufferer and he was constructing a public temple for which he required five tons of M. S. Round and eight tons of Girder. He further stated that the requirements were not available at Deoria and as such the application should be considered and forwarded to the Controller for consideration and orders. It appears that this application was forwarded, duly recommended, by the District Supply Officer, Deoria, and ultimately a permit was given to him by the Controller. He made another application, dated September 7, 1957. In this application he again stated that he was a political sufferer and he was constructing a public temple and dharamshala for which he required certain quantities of iron. He further stated that the requirements were not available at Deoria and as such the application should be forwarded to the Controller. This application was also recommended and forwarded and ultimately a permit was given to him. On January 3, 1958, the accused made another application (Ex. Ka - not available in the printed record) and a permit was given to him by the District Supply Officer himself. We may mention that the original permits are not printed in the record, and, therefore, we have not been able to see for ourselves as to what are the exact conditions contained in the permits.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent after obtaining the materials sanctioned to him under the permits did not construct any temple or dharamshala building at Barhaj Bazar or at any other place. We may mention that Barhaj Bazar is the place where he lives and the applications which are in the record also mention this address.

4. Before the Magistrate who tried the case the respondent was put the following question:

"It is alleged that the iron obtained under the permits mentioned in questions 2, 3 and 4 was not utilised for the purpose for which it was taken. What have you to say in this respect?" The respondent s reply was:

"No. Whatever iron to got, I used it in the temple situate in mauza Tinhari, P. S. Madhuban, district Azamgarh, which is my place of residence as well".

5. Before the Magistrate the accused had admitted to have purchased about 17 tons of iron. The Magistrate held it proved that the accused had at least purchased one ton more from one Mishri Lal, P. W. 7. Thus, he came to the conclusion that the accused had purchased at least 18 tons of iron. He further held that on the evidence it was clear that only 3/4 tons of rods had been utilised in the building constructed at Tinhari, but as the building had been constructed between 1943-52, no portion of he iron obtained by the accused had been utilised for the purpose for which it was procured. He further held that the accused had disposed of the iron wrongfully at Kanpur and did not even bring the same to Barhaj Bazar or Tinhar. According he held that the respondent had contravened the provisions of cl. 7 of the Control Order.

6. The respondent filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge held that barring a very small quantity of iron, the rema