HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Mitter, Renupada Mukherjee
ABDUR RAHAMAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Revn. 1199 Of 1954
Decided On : JUNE 27, 1955
Confiscation - Yarn - The court found the petitioner guilty of contravening Clause 19(1) of the West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948. The court imposed a sentence of 7 days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25.00, setting aside the previous fine of Rs. 100.00. The court also ordered the confiscation of 34 bundles of cotton yarn to be set aside as no offence was committed in connection with them.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a dealer in yarn, was charged with selling yarn without issuing a cash memo, leading to a conviction and a fine of Rs. 100.00, along with the confiscation of 34 bundles of yarn by the Police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of contravening Clause 19(1) of the West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948, and imposed a sentence of 7 days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25.00. The court also set aside the confiscation of the 34 bundles of yarn as no offence was committed in connection with them.
Issues: Conviction and sentencing of the petitioner for contravening Clause 19(1) of the Control Order, and the confiscation of 34 bundles of yarn.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the petitioner guilty of contravening Clause 19(1) of the Control Order and imposed a sentence of imprisonment and a fine. The court also set aside the confiscation of the 34 bundles of yarn as no offence was committed in connection with them.
Final Decision: The court imposed a sentence of 7 days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25.00, setting aside the previous fine of Rs. 100.00. The court also ordered the confiscation of 34 bundles of cotton yarn to be set aside as no offence was committed in connection with them.
( 1 ) THERE are three Rules before us, the first to show cause why an order of confiscation of 34 bundles of yarn should not be set aside, the second as to why a substantive sentence of imprisonment should not be imposed in respect of the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner, and the third as to why the petitioner's conviction and the sentence imposed upon him should not be set aside.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was at all material times a dealer in yarn holding a 'd' Group license under the West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948. The prosecution case against, the petitioner was that on 25/6/1954, he sold a quantity of yarn to P. W. 2 for which no cash memo was either prepared or given to the purchaser. Soon after the purchase, the petitioner was challenged but he was unable to produce the relative cash memo for the sale in question. In the shop were found 34 bundles of cotton yarn which were seized by the Police. On the above facts the petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 7 (1), Essential Supplies Act (Act 24 of 1946) for contravention of Clause 19 (1), West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948. Upon the evidence adduced the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner of the offence and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00, in default to suffer R. I. for 2 months. The learned Magistrate also ordered the confiscation to the State of the 34 bundles of Yam seized by the Police.
( 3 ) IT is clear that a conviction under Section 7 (1), Essential Supplies Act 'must be followed by a sentence of imprisonment. Section 7 (1) is in these terms :"if any person contravenes any order under Section 3 relating to cotton textiles, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine and any property in respect of which the order has been contravened or such part, thereof as to the Court may seem fit shall be forfeited to the Government. "in view of the mandatory provision of Section 7, the learned Magistrate was in error in not imposing a sentence of imprisonment. The section provides for a sentence of imprisonment a fine and for forfeiture of the property or a part thereof in respect of which an offence is committed.
( 4 ) CLAUSE 19 (1), West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yam Control Order, 1948, provides that every dealer, other than hawker, shall issue to every person who
purchases any cloth or yarn from him a true cash memorandum or credit note, as the case may be, in respect of such purchase of which such dealer shall keep a duplicate which shall he produced by such dealer for inspection on demand by the Textile Licensing Officer or any officer authorised in writing by such officer in this behalf. Under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 19 the memorandum is required to contain certain details.
( 5 ) ON the evidence, there could have been no doubt that the petitioner had been guilty of contravention of Clause 19 (1), West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948, Although we are not bound to assess the evidence afresh, we have examined the evidence and are satisfied that the petitioner was guilty of a breach of Clause 19 (1) of the Control Order of 1948.
( 6 ) IN view of the finding of fact, the petitioner is liable to be convicted. Under Section 7 (1), Essential Supplies Act a sentence of imprisonment is obligatory. We think that in all the circumstances of the case a sentence of 7 days' simple imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 25. 00 will meet the ends of justice. We must accordingly set aside the fine of Rs. 100. 00 imposed by me learned Magistrate and impose instead a sentence of 7 days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25. 00, in default another 7 days' simple imprisonment.
( 7 ) WITH regard to the, 34 bundles of cotton yarn seized it is clear that no offence was committed. Clause 29, West Bengal Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948, is in these terms. "a court trying any contravention
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.