RAMESHWAR BHARTIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rameshwar Bhartia, the appellant, is a shopkeeper in Assam. He was prosecuted for storing paddy without a licence in excess of the quantity permitted by the Assam Food Grains Control Order, 1947. He admitted storage and possession of 550 maunds of paddy, but pleaded that he did not know that any licence was necessary. The Additional District Magistrate recorded a plea of guilty, but imposed on him a fine of Rs. 50 only, as he considered his ignorance of the provisions of the Food Grains Control Order to be genuine. The stock of paddy was left in the possession of the appellant by the Procurement Inspector under a Jimmanama or security bond executed in his favour. He was subsequently unable to produce it before the Court, as the whole of it was taken away by a Congress M. L. A. for affording relief to those who suffered in the earthquake, and so, the appellant was ordered to procure a similar quantity of paddy after taking an appropriate licence, and to make over the same to the procurement department on payment of the price.

(2.) The District Magistrate, on being moved to do so by the procurement department, referred the case to the High Court under S. 438, Cr. P. C., for enhancement of the sentence, as in his opinion the sentence was unduly lenient and the Jimmanama, which was admittedly broken, should have been forfeited.

(3.) The reference was accepted by the High Court, and the sentence was enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000. As regards the Jimmanama, the case was sent back to the trial Court for taking action according to law under S. 514, Cr. P. C., for its forfeiture.