IN RE: SALA MAHAMMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 for having contravened the provisions of the Madras Rationing Order, Clause 4, read with Section 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules. He is a wholesale dealer in rice and paddy at Tellicherry and the contravention consisted in selling paddy to two persons in Kallai, outside the Municipal limits of Tellicherry and he is said to have contravened by the sale, the provisions of Clause 4 of the Madras Rationing Order, which runs thus:

(2.) BUT what is urged before me is that an article will be a " rationed article " only if it is to be sold for use in a rationed area and, if it is to be used or dealt with in a place other than the rationed area, it will not be a " rationed article." I do not think that I will be justified in accepting this contention, for, then we would have had, instead of the expression " any person ", this description, namely, " a person living in the rationed area requiring the article in the rationed area " which is not there. Therefore, the participle " rationed " must be understood as referring to the article and not to the use to which it is put or the place where it is to be used. The schema of the Rationing Order clearly indicates that it deals only with transactions in respect of rationed articles which are sold and purchased in the area. Therefore, it has reference only to the sale or purchase of the articles and not the user. If this is so understood, the petitioner is guilty.