Back
1969 Supreme(Cal) 148
Calcutta High Court
R.N.DUTT,A.P.DAS
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W. B. - Appellant
Versus
Prohlad Agarwalla - Respondent
Govt. Appeal No. 14 of 1962
Decided On : 06/20/1969
Priti Bhusan Burman, for Appellant; Ajit Kumar Dutt and J. P. Sribastava, for Respondent.
Contravention of a direction issued under paragraph 14(2) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, is not a contravention of the provisions of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, and is therefore not punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Headnote:
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 7 - IRON AND STEEL (CONTROL) ORDER, 1956 - PARAGRAPHS 14(2) AND 27(4) - NOTIFICATION NO. S. R. O. 1111/ESS. COMM. IRON AND STEEL - CONTRA VENTION OF DIRECTION ISSUED UNDER PARAGRAPH 14(2) - NOT A CONTRA VENTION OF THE ORDER - NOT PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravening paragraphs 15 and 27(4) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956. The allegation was that he sold G. C. sheets at a rate higher than the controlled rate and did not mention the weight of the G. C. sheets in the cash memo, which he was required to do under notification no. S. R. O. 1111/ESS. Comm. Iron and Steel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent did not charge a rate in excess of the controlled rate and that the contravention was of a direction issued under paragraph 14(2) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, which required a stockholder to issue a memorandum relating to every sale of iron and steel showing certain particulars.
Issues: Whether contravention of a direction issued under paragraph 14(2) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, is a contravention of the provisions of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 and punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that contravention of a direction issued under paragraph 14(2) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, is not a contravention of the provisions of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, and is therefore not punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The court reasoned that paragraph 14(2) does not require the stockholder to do a particular thing, but only empowers the Controller to give directions to the stockholders to give a memorandum or sale containing some specified particulars.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and discharged the respondent from his bail bond.
R. N. DUTT, J. :- The respondent was tried by a Magistrate under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 51, in default to rigorous imprisonment for three weeks. The respondent thereafter made an appeal and the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondent. Thereafter the State Government has filed this appeal against this order of acquittal.
2. The prosecution case was as follows:
3. The respondent was employed under Messrs. Nandaram Deotram, a firm at Kurseong. The firm was an authorised dealer in iron and steel under the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956. On November 17, 1960 the respondent sold three bundles of galvanised corrugated sheets to one Beharilal Bahsaria against permit no. 69/60, dated November 10, 1960, granted by the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies. Beharilal paid Rs. 294.52 P. as price and a cash memo was written and granted to him mentioning the rate at Rs. 880 per ton. The weight was not however mentioned in the cash memo. On November 19, 1960 Beharilal had certain suspicion about the weight and got the three bundles weighed and found the total weight as 5 Cwt. 3 Qrs. 6 Ibs. whose price at Rs. 880 per ton would be Rs. 255.34 P. The allegation against the respondent was, therefore, that he sold the G. C. sheets at a rate higher than the controlled rate.
4. On this allegation the respondent was charged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for having contravened paragraphs 15 and 27 (4) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956. The learned Magistrate found that the respondent did not charge a rate in excess of the controlled rate but he held that the respondent did not mention the weight of the G. C. sheets in the cash memo which he was required to do under notification no. S. R. O. 1111/ESS. Comm. Iron and Steel and on this finding the learned Magistrate convicted the respondent under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned Sessions Judge set aside this conviction primarily on the ground that there was want of mens rea in what the respondent did, namely, in not mentioning the weight of the G. C. sheets in the cash memo.
5. Having heard Mr. Burman and Mr. Dutt we do not think that the order of acquittal should be interfered with in this appeal. It is not necessary for us to consider the grounds for which the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of the respondent. We think that even otherwise the respondent cannot be convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the findings of the learned Magistrate. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act makes contravention of any 'order' made under Section 3 of the Act punishable. So a person
can be convicted under Section 7 only when it is proved that he has contravened any 'order' made under Section
3 of the Act. Here, the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 is an order made by the Central Government under
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. There is no contravention of any provision of this 'Order' as such.
Paragraph 14(2) of this Order states as follows:
"The Controller, may by notfication in the official Gazette, direct that every producer, stockholder or other person holding stocks of iron or steel when selling any iron or steel shall give to the purchaser a memorandum containing the particulars specified in such notification."
By virtue of this power the Controller issued notification No. S. R. O. 1111/ESS. COMM/Iron and Steel and that notification required a stockholder, here the respondent, to issue a memorandum relating to every sale of iron and steel showing certain particulars; weight of the goods sold is one of such particulars. So, what the learned Magistrate has found was that there was a contravention of a direction given under this notification made by the
Controller in exercise of the powers given to him under paragraph 14(2) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order. The question, therefore, ar
