MANIKLAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Manicka Lal, the Madras agent of Hindustan Motors Limited, Calcutta, and the second accused in C. C. Nos. 436, 436 and 437 of 1949 on the file of the third Presidency Magistrate, Madras, against his conviction on three counts, regarding the sale of three "Hindustan Ten" cars at Rs. 9,350 each, as against the controlled price of Rs. 8,195 each under Section 12 of the Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisition (Temporary Powers) Act, read with Clause 6 of the Madras Civil Motor Cars Control Order, 1947. The first accused, the absentee master of the firm, residing at Calcutta, was acquitted, by giving him the benefit of the doubt, and the second accused, the local manager of the firm in Madras, who actually sold the three care in question above the controlled price, was convicted on all the three counts, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each, or Rs. 750 in all, or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has paid the fines, and then appealed.

(2.) I have perused the records, and heard Mr. V. Rajagopalachari, for the appellant, and the State Prosecutor 'contra.' Mr. Rajagopalachari raised three main contentions. The first was that the letters of the Provincial Motor Transport Controller, Exs. D. 2 and D. 3, dated 25-11-1947 and 2-12-1947, while calling for certain particulars regarding the price of Rs. 9,350 fixed by the Calcutta Headquarters and mentioned by the appellant stated 'inter se', in Ex. D. 2, the letter to the appellant:

(3.) The second contention of Mr. Rajagopalachari was that the petitioner himself gave a price of Rs. 7,700 in his letter dated 23-3-1948 for the very type of car, and that this showed that he was not motivated by 'greed' in selling the car at Rs. 9,350 on the wrong assumption that the price shown in the Head Office circular must be the real controlled price. That may be so, but is not relevant for the purpose of considering the validity of the 'convictions.' There are two types of offences under our law; offences 'involving moral turpitude', and offences 'not involving moral turpitude', but having all the requisite elements required by law for a conviction, like, for Instance, buying or selling a controlled article without permit, not knowing that a permit is required; or keeping a gun without a licence by simply forgetting to renew the licence. The offences committed by this appellant fall under the latter category. That is, though all the requisites under the law to complete the offences and warrant the convictions are found, moral turpitude, like greed, and other unworthy motives are absent, though, of course, 'totally irrelevant except for sentence.', So, I confirm all the three convictions of the appellant as all the requisites under the law to complete the offences are satisfied.