STATE OF BIHAR Vs. GULAB CHAND PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Bhagat. learned counsel for the appellant-State, and Mr. Goburdhan, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This is a peculiar case. The State of Bihar had issued an order described as Bihar Essential Articles (Display of prices and Stocks), Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). It was published in the Bihar Government Gazette Extraordinary dated Sept. 10, 1977. It came into force from the date of publication, as provided in sub-cl. (3) of cl. (1). Sub-cl. (a) of cl. (2) of the Order defines 'article' to mean any essential commodity mentioned in Schs. I and II appended to the Order and further confers powers on the State Government to include any other articles if found necessary. Cl. (3) casts an obligation on the dealer to display at a conspicuous place near the entrance of his business premises a list of prices and stocks of all the articles mentioned in Schedule I in which he deals. Schedule I placitum 24 sets out 'soda ash (for washing purposes)' as one of the articles covered by the Order. This order is issued in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), As a corollary the breach of its provisions would be punishable under S. 7 of the Act.

(3.) It is alleged by the prosecution that the respondent is a dealer in soda ash. Upon an inspection of his premises on April 13, 1979 the visiting officer found an unaccounted stock of 13 bags of soda ash, in relation to which, according to the complainant, the respondent could not produce the necessary papers. Subsequently, the respondent submitted some cash memos and also pointed out that he had sold soda ash to various parties. May be, that would be for him to establish. The fact remains that there was unaccounted soda ash as complained of in the possession of the respondent and the complainant alleged that this would be violative of the Order. A complaint was filed alleging the aforementioned fact, though of course not mentioning the order, provision of which was violated, simultaneously stating that the respondent has committed an offence punishable under S. 7 of the Act. It may be mentioned that further allegations in the complaint were that the respondent has committed offences under Ss. 420 and 471 of I. P. C.