CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for revision of conviction and sentence imposed by the District Magistrate, Kozhikode, on the petitioner who was the 2nd accused in a case under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The act alleged against the two accused in the case is that at 10 a. m. on September 10, 1964, they sold to P. W. 3, four litres of Andhra Coarse Rice at 68p. per litre, while the maximum price fixed by law for the commodity was only 60p. per litre. The 1st accused is the salesman who measured the rice to P. W. 3; and the 2nd accused is the accountant of the shop who made the bill therefor. The 1st accused has been acquitted by the District Magistrate; and the 2nd accused has been convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs. 500/- with simple Imprisonment for four months in default. Hence this motion for revision by the 2nd accused.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner points out that no notification fixing the maximum price for the commodity is in proof in this case. True it is that black marketing is a highly anti social conduct that deserves severe punishment by Courts; but that is no reason to overlook the standard of proof in criminal trials. In Salekh Chand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1960 SC 283 ) the appellants were convicted for selling cement at a price above the maximum rate notified under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The Supreme Court held:

(3.) The learned State Prosecutor wanted a remit of the case to cure the defect in proof. All that is alleged against the petitioner is an illegal profiteering of 32p. in a transaction. I do not think that justice requires a retrial in this case. The example of the Supreme Court precedent (cited above) does not require it.