MAHADEVAPPA IRAPPA JOGUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. These petitioners are admittedly partners in a firm carrying on business in edible oil seeds, pulses, edible oil etc, in Bijapur city. In the proceeding initiated before him against these persons the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur, (C.C. 2637/81) had framed two charges against the accused. One was for alleged violation clause (3) r/w. 5 of the Karnataka Edible Oil Seeds (Licensing) Order, 1967 and another, for contravention of Clause(4) of the Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Storage) Order, 1977, both punishable u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (the Act). The accused challenged the Order framing charges against them before the Sessions Judge, Bijapur. The Learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision in part and quashed the first charge and directed the trial to go on re; the second charge.

(2.) In this Petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C., it is that part of the order of the Sessions Judge, retaining the second charge that is challenged. In support of this claim the Learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly made two submissions. His first submission is that the Learned Sessions Judge had erred in not noticing the second proviso to clause (4) of the Order of 1977, which clause, he says, allows a commission agent to store even beyond the quantity now said to have been found with his clients by the authorities. A similar argument had been pressed before the Learned Sessions Judge, but in vain. The Learned Judge has stated clearly as to how the quantum found with the petitioners was in excess of the limit placed even by the second proviso. This is only a prima facie finding and it would still be open to the accused to show during the trial that they come within that proviso.

(3.) The second ground urged by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that even according to the charge-sheet only one of the partners was present at the time when the premises was raided, and, therefore, if at all, only he can be proceeded against, but not others. In this connection, besides placing reliance on Section 10(1) of the Act, he also drew my attention to a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Ram Dutt Gupta & Ors. -v.- The State of West Bengal 1985(1) CRIMES 733.