Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
V. R. Newaskar, H. R. Krishnan and S. B. Sen, JJ.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
JOGILAL KESHRIMAL - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 229 Of 1962
Decided On : 04/19/1963
(2) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - S. 16 (1) (b) - Madhya Bharat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1952 - not covered by S. 16 - license under Madhya Bharat Act does not dispense with license under Food-grain Dealers Licensing Order 1958 (M.P.).
The Madhya Bharat Agricultural Produce Markets Act of 1952 is not one that is covered by S. 16 of the Essential Commodities Act. For that, it should be one controlling or authorizing the control of the production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in any essential commodity. The Madhya Bharat Agricultural Produce Markets Act has altogether nothing to do with this subject. It only provides for licenses enabling a dealer in agricultural produce to do business in a particular market area constituted under that Act. Thus, that Act has not been repealed by S. 16 of the Essential Commodities Act, nor can license issued under that Act take place of a license under the Madhya Pradesh Food-grains Control Order, 1958, made under S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Thus the accused persons having been licensed under the said Madhya Bharat Act does not in any manner enable them to deal in essential commodities or food-grains without a license under the Madhya Pradesh Food-grain Dealers Licensing Order, 1953. [Para 8
(3) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Ss. 7, 12 - breach of provisions of M.P. Food-grain Dealers Licensing Order, 1958 - accused importing food-grains after application for but before receipt of license - conduct of accused was not bona fide - fine to be imposed must be heavy to serve as deterrent.
Per Newaskar, J. (On difference between Krishnan and Sen, JJ.):
After the Madhya Pradesh Food-grain Dealers Licensing Order had been promulgated on 7-10-1958 the accused had deposited requisite licensing fee on 16-1-1959 and had applied for a license as required by the provisions of the Order on 29-1-1959 but before he received the same he imported a truck load of rice weighing one hundred and fifty five maunds and had that quantity in stock with him on 16-2-1959 when the Naib Tehsildar visited his place. The accused on coming to know of Naib Tehsildar's visit submitted an application on the same day i.e. 16-2-1959 admitting to have brought approximately 150 maunds of rice and to have the same in his store. Under the provisions of S. 3 (2) of the Order if a dealer had in his store any quantity of food-grain for which license is required in excess of 100 maunds there would be presumption that he had the same for the purpose of sale.
Held: Since the accused had not secured license till that date or even later up to 16-5-1959 there would be on terms of the provision aforesaid a presumption that he had stored the food-grains for the purpose of sale and consequently because of such storage he would be a dealer. As this was done by him when he was not armed with a license, which was a pre-condition, there was a clear contravention of the Order. Since the offence consisted in contravention of the provision of the Order not to carryon business as a dealer except and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license issued in this behalf by the Licensing Authority, procuring grain without having secured any such license to an extent which would lead to a presumption about a person's carrying on business as a dealer clearly ought to amount to an offence. Conduct of the accused in submitting to the Naib Tehsildar an application admitting the existence of the stock could not be construed as indicative of his bona fides as he should be credited with the knowledge that the Naib Tehsildar had come for checking and would discover him as having in his store contraband quantity. Therefore the fine to be imposed must be sufficiently heavy so as to serve as a deterrent for any other person in going ahead with a similar act with the hope of being dealt with leniently. As the offence had been tried by the First Class Magistrate ends of justice would be served if the maximum sentence of fine imposable by the trying Magistrate was imposed. Section 12 of the Essential Commodities Act did not fix the upper limit; hence where a State Government empowers a First Class Magistrate specially under the Essential Commodities Act the fine which he can impose is not limited to that under S. 32 Cr. P. Code. The limit which S. 32 has now imposed by Cr. P. C. Amendment Act, 26 of 1955 (i.e. Rs. 2000/-) will be the legitimate limit for the imposition of fine. AIR 1948 Bom. 358 relied on. [Paras 31 & 32
( 1 ) THE respondents who run a business in foodgrains at a place called Khetia on the border of the Maharashtra State have been acquitted by the First Class magistrate, Sendhwa, of the offence of contravening one of the provisions of the madhya Pradesh Foodgrain Dealers Licensing Order, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955. The contravention was their storing, in course of their business, 155 maunds of rice ore 16-2-1959 without a valid license. While finding the facts, as alleged by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate; held that the respondents were only guilty of "haste and ignorance" and there was no mens rea; elsewhere he has suggested that the offence was only of "technical, nature". Accordingly he has acquitted them. In the State appeal it is pointed out that on the. facts themselves these appellants were liable to punishment especially because such contraventions' lead to extensive export to other States and sales at unconscionably high prices.
( 2 ) THE Questions in this Court are, whether they were justified because they had already obtained a license under the Madhya Bharat Agricultural Produce Markets act on 1952, which was valid on the date of the storage of the rice; further, whether the Court was right in acquitting simply by calling it a "technical offence", or one without mens rea.
( 3 ) THE facts are simple. Khetia is a municipal town and there is a market there constituted under the Madhya Bharat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1952 (hereinafter called "the Act of 1952" ). That Act has nothing to do with the control over the supply, distribution and sale of essential commodities; it provides for the licensing of business in agricultural produce in the declared market areas. The respondents had been licensed under that Act. Theirs seems to be a family business run by the father and son, namely, Keshrimal and Jogilal jointly; but in the relevant transactions, it was Jogilal who was playing the active part and for the purpose of the criminal prosecution it would be convenient to treat him as the only person in charge of the business.
( 4 ) THE Madhya, Pradesh Foodgrain Dealers Licensing Order was made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955) for the purpose of centrolling business in foodgrain anywhere in the Madhya Pradesh. Every person who wants to do business in foodgrain should, from the date of the commencement of the order which was the 23rd October, 1958, obtain a license from the licensing authority. If anybody carries on the business of a dealer of foodgrain without a valid license he would be liable to punishment under the general penal Section 7, the maximum punishment being three years' imprisonment and a fine imprisonment is mandatory, except where the Court records reasons why a fine alone would meet the ends of justice. Dealing in foodgrain has been defined and there is a provision that anybody who stores foodgrain in a quantity more than 100 maunds would, unless he proves the contrary, be presumed to be storing it for the purpose of sate, which straightway would make him a dealer.
( 5 ) THE respondents had applied for a license on the 29th January, 1959 though they seem to have purchased the appropriate stamp sometime before. This application was under consideration, and the license was issued to them about three months later. In that application itself it was clearly stated that there was no stock of rice; but on the 16th February, the Naib Tehsildar paid a visit to Khetia because he had got information that a few days before it, the respondents had brought to their godown a truckload, of 155 maunds of rice, which, so the information went, was to be exported to a neighbouring State without appropriate license or sanction. The information is of course not evidence, but it was introductory to the Tehsildar's conduct. When he went and called upon the respondents to explain, respondent Jogilal appeared and gave a written statemen
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
