1981 Supreme(Ori) 130
ORISSA HIGH COURT
R. C. PATNAIK, J.
NARENDRA KISHORE CHAND
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA
Criminal Revn. No. 274 of 1980,
Decided on : 27 -11 -1981.
A dealer is not required to display the stock position and prices on a holiday when the shop remains closed.
Headnote:
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 7 - ORISSA WHEAT AND WHEAT PRODUCTS CONTROL ORDER, 1973 - CLAUSE (3) - ORISSA DECLARATION OF STOCKS AND PRICES OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ORDER, 1973 - CLAUSE (3) - DISPLAY OF STOCK POSITION AND PRICES ON BOARD - HOLIDAY - NON-DISPLAY - WHETHER CONTRAVENTION - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of clause (3) of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat Products Control Order, 1973 and Cl.(3) of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of the Essential Commodities Order, 1973. The allegations were that he was in possession of various essential commodities in his shop but failed to display the stock position and rates on the board as required by the Orissa Order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not required to display the stock position and prices on a holiday when the shop remained closed. The purpose of the provisions being to convey information to purchasers/members of public about availability of commodities and their prices and display acting also as a deterrent on the shopkeeper, when, therefore, a shop remains closed, there can be no relevance or justification for display of the price list and the stock position.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was required to display the stock position and prices on a holiday when the shop remained closed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various precedents to support its conclusion that the petitioner was not required to display the stock position and prices on a holiday when the shop remained closed. In N. Karpeja v. State of Orissa, the court held that a dealer is not required to display daily lists of prices etc. on a day he observed as a weekly holiday. In Dev Chand v. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court held that a dealer is not required to display daily lists of prices etc. on a day he observed as a weekly holiday. In Nathmal v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that a shop owner cannot be expected to display the prices or stock list on a day when the shop was not open. In Gurubachan Singh v. State of Bihar, the court held that non-display of price list and stock position at a time when no business was being transacted cannot be said to be in violation of the provisions of the Control Order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquitted the petitioner.
JUDGEMENT
The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of clause (3) of the Orissa Wheat and Wheat Products Control Order, 1973 and Cl.(3) of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of the Essential Commodities Order, 1973.
2. The allegations to support the charge on the first count were that he was in possession of 10 bags of Atta, each bag weighing 90 K.Gs. and one bag of Atta weighing 78 K.Gs. 59 bags of flour and 80 K.Gs. of Suji and allegations in respect of the second charge were that the petitioner was in possession of 4 tins of mustard oil, each tin weighing 16.8 K.Gs. and 85 K.Gs. of sugar in his shop; but he, however, did not display the position of stock etc. on the board which he was required to maintain under the Orissa Order referred to above. The learned Magistrate acquitted him of the first charge; but convicted him for violation of the Orissa Order for his failure to display the stock position and the rates thereof as stated above and convicted him therefor under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default whereof, directed the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioner failed in his search for acquittal before the lower appellate Court and hence this revision.
3. Mr. P.K. Misra appearing for the petitioner submits that 10th August, 1975 on which the prosecution party is said to have visited the shop of the petitioner was a Sunday. The shops and other commercial establishments in the area in which the petitioner carries on his business remain closed on Sundays. The witnesses for the prosecution were specifically asked on this question; but they did not give any positive answer, rather evaded. The petitioner, therefore, examined one witness as D.W. 1 and proved the resolution of the Merchants' Association, which has been marked as Ext. A/1.
10-8-75 fell on a Sunday. D.W. 1 has categorically stated that in the area of Chhatia shops and other commercial establishments remain closed on Sundays and to that effect resolution has been passed by the Merchants' Association of the area. Ext. A refers to the same. The learned counsel submits that 10-8-75 being a holiday, the petitioner was not obliged in law to state or display the stock position on the board nor was he enjoined by law to display any other particulars thereon. He has drawn my attention to the decision of this Court in the case of N. Karpeja v. State of Orissa (Criminal Revision No. 91 of 1977 : (1978) 45 Cut LT (S.N.) 19). This Court observed :-
"......... Admittedly 4th January, 1976, was a Sunday and it may be that the petitioner had not come to the shop in the morning and, therefore, had not found it possible to change the date."
The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dev Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1979 Raj Cri C 347) held :-
"A dealer is not required to display daily lists of prices etc. on a day he observed as a weekly holiday. Therefore, he does not commit the contravention of clause 3 of the Order if he does not display the list on that day."
In the case of Nathmal v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1975 SC 2198) : (1975 Cri LJ 1871) while dealing with an application for habeas corpus questioning the detention of Nathmal, the Supreme Court observed (para 7) :
"......the shop was not open on the day under consideration, the petitioners could not be expected to display the prices or stock list on that day." (Emphasis supplied)
Further, reference has been made to Gurubachan Singh v. State of Bihar (1976 BLJR 120). In that case 432 pieces of Sunlight soap were recovered in a raid of the godown. There was no board to indicate the prices and stock of that shop. The petitioner therein was prosecuted for contravention of clauses (3) and (4) of the Bihar Essential Commodities other than Foodgrains Prices and Stocks (Display and Control) Order, 1967. Clause (4) of the Order especially r