SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Raj) 390

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
P.D.Kudal, J.
Laxmi Narain - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 206 of 1975 against the judgment of Shri S.N. Calla, Addl. Sessions Judge, Saw ai Madhopur, date 2.7.1975. in Criminal Appeal No 47 of 1975.
Decided On : 6-12-1978

The court held that a penal liability cannot be imposed on a dealer for not displaying the stock of articles he deals in unless there is a specific direction to do so in the relevant order.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTIONS 3/7 - RAJASTHAN (DISPLAY OF PRICE & STOCK OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES) ORDER, 1966 - Display of list of prices and stocks of articles - Interpretation of clause 3 of the order - Whether the order casts a duty on the dealer to display the stock also.

Fact of the Case:

The accused-petitioner was convicted under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for not displaying the stock of groundnut oil in his shop as required by the Rajasthan (Display of Price & Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966. The accused contended that the order did not require him to display the stock and that the amendment made in 1971 did not incorporate any such direction in Clause 3 of the order.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Clause 3 of the Rajasthan (Display of Price & Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966 did not cast a duty on the dealer to display the stock of articles he deals in. The court found that the original order did not contain any direction regarding the display of stock and that the amendment made in 1971 only changed the nomenclature of the order and the heading of Clause 3, but did not change the language of the clause itself.

Issues: Whether Clause 3 of the Rajasthan (Display of Price & Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966 casts a duty on the dealer to display the stock also.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a penal liability could not be imposed on the accused-petitioner only because the nomenclature of the order had been changed, or that the heading of clause 3 had been changed, or that Form 'A had been changed. The court found that there was no legal sanction authorising these amendments and that the order itself did not cast an obligation on the dealer to show or exhibit the stocks on that particular day.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner, and directed the refund of the sale proceeds of the groundnut oil that had been auctioned and deposited with the Government.

JUDGMENT

1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated 2nd July, 1975. The accused-petitioner was convicted under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has contended that the accused-petitioner did not contravene any of the provisions of the Rajasthan (Display of Price & Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966 The shop of the accused petitioner was checked on 20th February, 1974 by the Enforcement Inspector. The prosecution case against the accused petitioner was that though there was a list displaying the price, but on the search of the house, 29 tins of ground-nut oil were found which were not entered in the stock register. It was also contended that these tins were received at the time of the checking by the Enforcement Inspector, and could be entered into the stock register' only in the evening after the tins had been received in full. It was also contended that the provisions of Rajasthan (Display of Price & Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966, have not been correctly interpreted. It was also contended that no offence has been committed by the accused petitioner.

3. Mr. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the state, has contended that the orders passed by the learned Courts below are in conformity with law and' that no interference is called for on the revisional side.

4. Respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused.

5. By order No. F. 37 (49) Ind./A/66, dated Jaipur, August 19, 1966, published in Rajasthan Gazette on the same, day, the Rajasthan (Display of Price of Essential Commodities) order, 1966, was published. Clause 3 of the said order of 1966, reads as under:-

3. Display of list of Prices : Not later than fifteen days from the commencement of this order every dealer shall during the hours of his business display conspicuously in Form "A" a list of prices of articles he deals in at a place as near to the entrance of his business premises as possible: Provided that numerals to be used in the list of prices shall be either in the Devnagari form of numerals or any international form of India numerals :

"Provided further that in the case of an article which is added to the Schedule at any time after the commencement of this Order, the period of fifteen days shall be counted from the date on which such article is added to the Schedule."
Form A attached to this Order reads as under : FORM'A' Name of the DealerPremises of BusinessList of prices displayed in accordance with Clause 3 of the Rajasthan (Display of Prices of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966.

S/No.

Name of Article

Quality/makes of article

Unit of Price

Price

Remarks

1

2

3

4

5

6

This order was amended by order no. 37 (49) Udyog/Ka/66, dated - December 8, 1971. By this amendment order, the Order was amended to read as under

"Rajasthan (Display of Prices & Stock of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966.
Form'A' was also amended to read as under:- izi= (d)

O;kikjh dk uke

dkjckj

ifjlj

fnukad

ekl

rFkk o"kZ

jktLFkku@vko';d oLrq ewY; rFkk LVkd izn'kZu@vkns'k] 1966 ds [k.M 3 ds vuqlkj iznf'kZr ewY; vkSj LVkd dh lwphA

dz0la0

oLrq dk uke

oLrq dh DokfyVh@esd

izfr bZdkbZ ewY;

oLrq dk fnol ds izkjEHk ij LVkd

vfHk;qfDr;kWa

1

2

3

4

5

6

"oLrq dh izR;sd DokfyVh@esd i`Fkd&i`Fkd fn[kyk;s tkus pkfg;s rkfd DokfyVh@esd dk i`Fkd&i`Fkd ewY;@LVkd minf'kZr gks ldsA"

DykWt 3 vkWQ nh ,esUMsM vkMZj jhM~l ,t vUMj %&

"3- ewY; lwph o LVkd dk izn'kZu & izR;sd O;kikjh bl vkns'k ds izkjEHk ls 15 fn













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top