HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Hemeon
RADHAKISAN, LAXMINARAYAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1951
Decided on : 24-09-1951
ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES (TEMPORARY POWERS) ACT, 1946 - SECTION 3, 4 - CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR SUGAR (CONTROL) ORDER, 1949 - AMENDMENT WITHOUT CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S CONCURRENCE - ULTRA VIRES - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a sugar dealer, was convicted for contravening the Central Provinces and Berar Sugar (Control) Order, 1949, by storing sugar without a license. He argued that the amending notification, which expanded the definition of "sugar" and "dealer in sugar," was ultra vires as it was made without the Central Government's concurrence, which was a condition for the Provincial Government's power to make orders under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amending notification was indeed ultra vires as it was made without the Central Government's concurrence, which was a condition for the Provincial Government's power to make orders under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. Therefore, the applicant was not liable for contravention of its provisions.
Issues: 1. Whether the amending notification to the Central Provinces and Berar Sugar (Control) Order, 1949, was ultra vires for lack of Central Government's concurrence. 2. Whether the applicant was liable for contravention of the provisions of the original Order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amending notification was ultra vires as it was made without the Central Government's concurrence, which was a condition for the Provincial Government's power to make orders under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. 2. The court held that the applicant was not liable for contravention of the provisions of the original Order as the sugar in question was khandsari sugar and storage for sale was not hit by that Order.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the applicant were set aside, and the fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded.
Hemeon, J—The applicant Radhakisan Laxminarayan of Akola was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 by the Additional District Magistrate, Akola, under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 for contravention of clause 3 of the Centrist Provinces and Berar Sugar (Control) Order, 1949; and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Akola. He has now come up in revision to this Court.
2. The admitted facts are as follows. The applicant who is a big merchant and proprietor of the firm Raghunathdas Rampratap at Akola, held a licence to deal in sugar under the Central Provinces and Berar Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order in 1943. The firms of Rajaram Ramawatar and Bansidhar Nandlal of Bareli, Uttar Pradesh, sent a consignment of 185 bags of sugar to Akola. The consignment was to self. The invoices were received on the 15th January 1950 and the consignment arrived at Akola five days later.
The railway receipts Exhibits P-16 and P-17 in respect of the consignment had been endorsed by the consignors in favour of the firm Raghunathdas Rampratap. That firm endorsed them in favour of D. N. Gosawi (P. W, 6), station dalal, who took delivery of them on the 23rd January 1950 and sent them to the applicant's godown. On the same day, S. V. Garde (P. W. 2) station-officer, Akola kotvali, having received information concerning the consignment, went to the applicant's godown where he found the 185 bags of sugar arranged in 3 stacks. As the applicant's servant Ramdhan was unable to produce a licence for dealing in sugar under the Central Provinces and Berar Sugar (Control) Order, 1949, S. V. Garde seized the bags.
3. The applicant in examination denied that he had on the 23rd January 1950 given Prabhakar (P. W. 7), Gosawi's servant the railway receipts Exhibits P-16 and P-17 for transmission to Gosawi to enable him to take delivery of the bags of sugar or that he (the applicant) was aware that Gosawi had taken delivery of them in the name of his firm. He further expressed ignorance of the fact of the seizure of the bags from his godown on that date, but he admitted that he had applied on the 16th January 1950 for a licence under the Order of 1949. He added that he had not ordered the sugar, that Jagannath, munim looked after the management of the business and that the sugar had been sent to his shop ''as adtia''. The case of the applicant's servants, Ramdhan and Pannalal was to the effect that they had no knowledge whether their employer had a licence or not; and this defence was accepted by the trial Court which acquitted them. The applicant's defence was as follows:
I have not committed any offence. I was only to act as commission agent, on receipt of orders from the consignor. I was a former licencee and was dealing in sugar during the previous 3 years. I had applied for a fresh licence by way of renewal. I was led to believe that I would get the licence. The delivery was given to firm servants by railway authorities on the advice of the Deputy Commissioner. My action is altogether bona fide. I am not the owner of the goods.
No evidence was adduced in defence.
4. In the course of his arguments the applicant's learned counsel raised the following interesting point. In the original Central Provinces and Berar Sugar (Control) Order, 1949, which came into force on the 13th September 1949, ''Sugar'' was defined in clause 2 (a) as any sugar of crystalline structure; but that sub-clause was amended by Food Department Notification No. 25640-1446-XXV-FZ, dated the 18th October 1949, and ''Sugar'' was defined as follows:
i. any sugar of crystalline structure;
ii. any form of sugar containing more than 90 per cent sucrose;
iii. sugar manufactured by any process including sugar made in vacuum pan factories from cane or gur or palmyra jaggery as well
as khandsari sugar, sugar-candy (misri) and bura.
A ''dealer in sugar'' was defined in the original Order as a person dealing in the purchase, sale or distribution of sugar i
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.