The judgment established the power of the Court to review an acquittal and clarified the validity of a notification despite a mention of a wrong rule.

VASUDEVAMURTHY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the First Additional sessions Judge, Bangalore Division, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the City Magistrate, Bangalore.

( 2 ) THE accused was a registered retail dealer in kerosene oil with his shops in New Tharagupet, bangalore City. He was prosecuted for selling two tins of kerosene oil containing 8 gallons to one Channaveerappa, P. W. 8, for Rs. 19/- which was in excess of the price fixed and notified by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. In that connection he was also charged for having sold the kerosene oil to P. W. 8 who did not hold a ration card) having failed to issue him a receipt in respect of the same, for failing to maintain a daily sales account as he was required to do in respect of the sales of kerosene and for not exhibiting in his shop premises a statement required of him showing the stock, selling price and other particulars of kerosene held by him for sale.

( 3 ) P. W. 3, a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the office of the Special Officer, Anti-corruption Measures, received information on 17-8-49 that the accused was selling kerosene oil at more than the controlled rate. With a view to verify this information he had two ten rupee currency notes Exs. P-6 and P-7 initialled by the First Magistrate, Civil Station (P. W. 6); and on the morning of 18-8-49 he along with P. W. 4 Vittal Rao, another Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 5 Venkata Rao, a Police Daffedar and P. W. 14 Govindappa, the Sub-Inspector of the local chamarajpot Police Station, and P. W. 8 Channaveerappa went near the shop of the accused. P. W. 8 was asked to go into the accused's shop and to buy two tins of kerosene. The accused is then said to have sold to him the two tins of kerosene oil M. Os. 1 and 2 for Rs. 19/- and received Exs. P-6 and P-7 currency notes for Rs. 10/-each and given him a rupee note as change. While he was coming out of the accused's shop with the tins the police went into that shop and recovered the two marked notes and charged the accused as aforesaid. The accused pleaded that he was not present in the shop when P. W. 8 came to his shop and asked for kerosene, that during his absence a servant of his, one Hanumanthappa had sold to P. W. 8 not kerosene oil but diesel oil for Rs. 15/- and that he himself had not therefore committed any offence.

( 4 ) THE learned City Magistrate found that the accused had sold the oil for more than the controlled price and was accordingly guilty of an offence under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India rules. He also found that he had sold the kerosene oil to a person who held no ration card, that he had failed to issue a receipt and that he had also failed to put up a board of the stock and rates; but he was not satisfied that the prosecution had made out that the accused had not maintained the accounts as required of him and gave him the benefit of the doubt in respect of that charge. He accordingly convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-; and on the other three counts he sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-each. On appeal the First Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him in respect of all the charges. He came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not established by clear evidence that the appellant had sold the kerosene oil to P. W. 8 for a price higher than that fixed; and the other three charges being incidental to that main charge he acquitted the accused of all the three charges. As regards the charge that the accused had not put up a board, he held that it was not clearly shown that no board had been put up.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate-General contends that the conclusions reached by the learned additional Sessions Judge are very unreasonable and that his appreciation of the evidence and surrounding circumstances of the case is perverse. He urges that there is overwhelmin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document