IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
N.C. Talukdar and A. N. Banerjee, JJ.
Subodh Chandra Sadhukhan & 3 Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 1010 of 1974
Decided On : March 6, 1975
DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES, 1971 - RULE 114 (11A) - WEST BENGAL DECLARATION OF STOCK AND PRICE OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (SECOND AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1972 - PARAGRAPH 3 - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - SECTIONS 7 (1) AND 8 - WEST BENGAL ESSENTIAL FOODSTUFF ANTI HOARDING ORDER, 1966 - PARAGRAPH 4 - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - SALE OF SEIZED MUSTARD SEEDS - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of violating the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities (Second Amendment) Order, 1972, by failing to display the actual stock of mustard seeds in their possession, and of violating the West Bengal Essential Foodstuff Anti Hoarding Order, 1966, by illegally possessing rice, wheat, and ration cards. The seized mustard seeds were ordered to be sold by the State through the West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not dealers within the meaning of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities (Second Amendment) Order, 1972, and therefore the impugned order directing a sale on the basis thereof was not maintainable. The court also held that mustard seeds were not included in the definition of essential foodstuff under the West Bengal Essential Foodstuff Anti Hoarding Order, 1966, and therefore the penalty under sections 7(1) and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was not attracted.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were dealers within the meaning of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities (Second Amendment) Order, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of "dealer" under section 2(a) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities (Second Amendment) Order, 1972, and held that the petitioners, who were oil mill owners, were not dealers of mustard seeds but of oil. The court also interpreted the definition of "essential foodstuff" under section 2(1) of the West Bengal Essential Foodstuff Anti Hoarding Order, 1966, and held that mustard seeds were not included in the definition.
Final Decision: The court made the Rule absolute, set aside the impugned order directing the sale of the seized mustard seeds, and directed that the mustard seeds be made over to the petitioners.
Talukdar J.
This Rule is at the instance of the four accused petitioners directed against an order dated the 14th September, 1974 passed by Sri G.B. Ghosh, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta directing a sale of the seized mustard seeds by the State through the West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited at a price to be fixed by the Food Commissioner in Case No. C/EB-358 dated the 9th September, 1974 under Rule 114 (11a) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 read with sections 7 (1) and 8 of the Essential Commodites Act, 1955.
2. The facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass. On the 9th September, 1974 at about 10 A.M., some members of the local Juba Congress and the Chhatra Parisad came to the mill premises an they apprehended that Essential Food-stuff were being stored there, On the same day at about 3. 30 P.M., S.T., S.C. Das of the Enforcement Branch along with some other officers came to the mill on receipt of information. They entered the mill premises and on conducting search therein found a stock of 321.600 Kgs. of rice, 80 Kgs. of wheat and 37 Ration cards as well as 910.500 Kgs. of mustard seeds. The entire stock was seized by the Police under a seizure list. Following the seizure a first information report was lodged by the above-mentioned Sub-Inspector at the Durtola Police Station alleging, inter alia, that the accused petitioners illegally possessed the above-mentioned stock of rice, wheat and ration cards violating the provisions of the West Bengal Essential Foodstuff Anti Hoarding Order, 1966 and further alleging that by failing to display the actual stock of mustard seeds in their possession in the stock and rate board, the accused petitioners had also violated the provisions of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities (second amendment) Order, 1972, thereby committing an offence punishable under Rule 114 (11a) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 and also offences under sections 7 (1) and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act... 1955. The accused petitioners were arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on the 9th September, 1971 and were produced before the court of the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, on the 10th when they prayed for bail but the same was refused. Ultimately they were released on bail on the 14th September, 1971. The investigating officer in the meantime had prayed on the 10th September, 1974 for permission to dispose of the seized rice and wheat to the Food Corporation of India and the mustard seeds which were also seized, through the West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited. The consideration of the prayer was deferred till the next date in the presence of the Public Prosecutor, Calcutta. On the 14th September, 1974 as mentioned above, the accused petitioners were released on bail and by a further order passed on that date the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed that the entire quantity of mustard seeds seized in the case would be sold by the State through the West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited at a price to be fixed by the Food Commissioner. This order has been impugned and forms the subject matter of the present Rule.
3. Mr. Dilip Kumar Dutta, Advocate with Mr. Pranab Kumar Deb, Advocate, appearing in support of the Rule made a two-fold submission, He contended in the first instance that there has been no violation of paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Price of Essential Commodities Order, 1972 attracting penalty under Rule 114 (11a) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. He next contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the subject matter of the offence being mustard seeds no offence under sections 7 (1) and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been committed. Mr. Sudhir Gopal Poddar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that mustard seeds are perishable
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.