LAWS(SC)-1963-11-7

MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION Vs. M NILA CHANDRA SINGH

Decided On November 29, 1963
MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION Appellant
V/S
M.NILA CHANDRA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question of law which arises in this appeal relates to the construction of cl. 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order, 1958. This question arises in this way.

(2.) The respondent was charged with having committed an offence punishable under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in that on February 9, 1960, he was found storing 178 Mds. of paddy in his godown without any licence in violation of cl. 3 of the said Order. The case against the respondent was that on February 9, 1960, his godown was searched and 178 Mds. of paddy was found stored in it. This fact was not denied by the respondent though he pleaded that the paddy which was found in his godown was meant for the consumption of the members of his family who numbered fifteen. He also pleaded that out of the stock found in his godown 40 mds. of paddy belonged to Lalito Singh, his relation. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bishenpur, who tried the case of the respondent did not believe his statement that the stock was meant for the consumption of the members of his family. He, however, believed the evidence of Lalito Singh that 40 Mds. out of the stock belonged to him, and so he passed an order directing that out, of the stock which had been attached 40 Mds, should be released in favour of Lalito Singh. In regard to the rest of the stock, the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that as a result of the provisions contained incl. 3(2) of the Order a presumption arose against the respondent and that presumption took his case under cl. 3(1) of the Order. That in turn attracted the provisions of cl. 7 of the Order and made the respondent liable under S. 7 of the Essential commodities act. On these findings the learned Magistrate convicted the respondent of the offence charged. He, however, held that it was not necessary to direct the forfeiture of the paddy and that the ends of justice would be met if he was fined to pay Rs. 500/- default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(3.) Against this Order the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge at Manipur. The learned Sessions Judge substantially agreed with the view taken by the learned Magistrate. He believed the witnesses who have referred to the circumstances under which the paddy stored in the godown of the respondent was recovered, and he held that the respondent had been properly convicted under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The order of sentence also was confirmed.