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

1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 105

HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Hemeon, Choudhuri
STATE GOVERNMENT MADHYA PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
PIRMOHAMMAD NAZAFIKHAN – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1952
Decided on : 25-09-1952

Advocates Appeared:
K K Thakur, R K Thakur, W B Pendharkar, Advocates

Breach of licence conditions implies a contravention of the Yarn Dealers Licensing Order and is punishable under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act.

Headnote:

Yarn Dealers Licensing Order - Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act - Cl. 3, Cl. 22, Foodgrains Control Order, 1945 - The court discussed the interpretation of the conditions of the licence, the definition of 'dealer', and the penalties for breach of conditions. It highlighted the connection between the breach of licence conditions and the contravention of Cl. 3 of the Yarn Dealers Licensing Order, emphasizing the power of the licensing authority to impose additional penalties under Cl. 22.

Fact of the Case:

The Respondent, a yarn dealer, was acquitted of breaching the conditions of his licence under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. The State Government appealed the acquittal, arguing that the breach of licence conditions amounted to a contravention of the Yarn Dealers Licensing Order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the breach of the licence conditions constituted a contravention of Cl. 3 of the Yarn Dealers Licensing Order and was punishable under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. The Respondent's failure to maintain the stock register was deemed a violation of the law.

Issues: Interpretation of the conditions of the licence, definition of 'dealer', and penalties for breach of conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: The breach of licence conditions implies a contravention of Cl. 3 of the Yarn Dealers Licensing Order and is punishable under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. The failure to maintain the stock register was attributed to the Respondent's responsibility to comply with the law.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the Respondent was convicted under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in default one month's rigorous imprisonment.

JUDGMENT

1. This Is an appeal filed by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1951 acquitting the Respondent who was convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur, under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, for breach of condition No. 5 of the licence issued in form B under the Central Provinces and Berar Yarn Dealers Licensing Order. 1949

2. It is not disputed that the Respondent is a dealer in yarn and was given B class licence under cl. 4, Central Provinces and Berar Yam Dealers Licensing Order, 1949. He had the accounts entered in his register till the end of 29-13-1950. He had dealings in yarn on 20th and 31st December 1950, but failed to maintain the account for these two days in his stock register. He thus contravened the condition no, 5 of the licence granted to him,

3. His defence was that he was illiterate and could not make the necessary entries. He used to maintain the register with the help of a clerk who remained absent. He thus contended that his failure to maintain the stock register was due to causes beyond his control. The plea raised on behalf of the Respondent for not maintaining the accounts of the dealings on the 30th and 31st December 1950 was negatived. The only question raised on behalf of the Respondent before the learned Sessions Judge was that the breach of the condition No. 5 of the licence in form B did not amount to a breach of the Central Provinces and Berar Yarn Dealers Licensing Order, 1949. Under the circumstances, he could not be convicted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the contention and acquitted the Respondent. The State Government has therefore come up in appeal against the acquittal.

4. It was argued on behalf of the State Government that cl. 3, Central Provinces and Berar Yarn Dealers Licensing Order, 1949, makes it obligatory on a dealer in yarn to deal with the commodity according to the conditions laid down in the licence, one of the conditions being to maitain the accounts of the transactions. Failure to maintain accounts would, therefore, amount to contravention of cl. 3 of the Order.

5. As against this, it was contended on behalf of the Respondent that the definition of the word "dealer" in the Order does not include maintenance of accounts of the transactions. As such "keeping account" is not within the ambit of the expression "deal" as defined in cl. 2 of the Order. It was then argued that the Central Provinces and Berar Yarn Dealers Licensing Order, 1949, does not provide for punishment for the breach of the conditions of the licence. The only penalty for a breach of the condition is cancellation of the licence under cl. 22. In support of this contention, reference was made to cl. 9 of the Foodgrains Control Order which separately provides punishment for the breach of the conditions of the licence. Reference was also made to a similar provision in Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules as amended on 18-7-1942. The rule prior to its amendment contained no provision for punishing the contravention of orders framed under R. 81(2) (b).

6. The Central Provinces and Berar Yarn Dealers Licensing Order, 1949, was made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 Clause 3 of of the Order is as follows:

Save as hereinafter provided, no person shall deal in yarn except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the licensing authority.

7. It makes it clear that the dealer in yarn is prohibited from dealing in the commodity in any manner except in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the licensing authority. In order to regulate trade and to see that the goods were sold to 'bona fide' consumers at fair prices, it was necessary to impose conditions in the licence issued to the dealers. The licence in the present













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
whatsapp-icon Back to top