A.S. VENKATARAMA IYER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted in this case for an offence under s. 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The accused was running a rice mill called the Kamalambika Rice Mill having taken it on lease from one Natesa Chettiar, who has been examined as P.W. 6 in the case. A licence under the Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1955, has been issued to P.W. 6. Subsequent to the issue of the licence, the petitioner herein obtained a lease of the rice mill and he was found to be running it from Jan., 1955 to 31st Aug., 1955. The date when he was actually found to be running it was 26-1-1955. Admittedly the petitioner has no licence in his name. The licence continued to be in the name of his lessor P.W. 6. The lessee is one Swaminatha Trading Corporation represented by Director and Manager Venkatarama Iyer. The complaint has been laid against this Trading Corporation represented by the Director Venkatarama Iyer. The complaint is for not taking out a licence as required under the provisions of the Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1955, and the petitioner has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50.

(2.) The contention of Mr. T.S. Kuppuswami Ayyar appearing for the petitioner is that as the lessor has got a licence in his name, it is not necessary for the lessee to take out a further licence in his name, as according to his reading of clause (2) of the Order, the licence must be interpreted as having been issued on behalf of the mill. Clause (2) is as follows:-

(3.) Stress is laid on the expression "in that behalf" as meaning "on behalf of the mill" and "not on behalf of the person". This question came up for consideration before Ramaswami Gounder, J. in Cr. R.C. No. 960 of 1955. There the accused instead of being a lessee was a purchaser of the mill from the original licensee. Otherwise the facts are exactly identical with this case, that is, the vendee also did not obtain a licence. During the period in question there was a valid licence in favour of the vendor. A similar contention like the one raised before me was raised before my learned brother and he has dealt with it fully. He has pointed out that under the terms of this Order, the licence is a personal one and not issued on behalf of the machine. For instance, clauses (3) and (5) of the conditions of the licence impose certain obligations on the licensee. If those obligations are not observed it is only the licensee who could be prosecuted for non-observance of the conditions, and so a vendee or a lessee who has not observed those conditions can well resist the prosecution on the ground that the conditions therein and the obligations imposed by these clauses relate only to the licensee and that he is not bound by those conditions as he is not a licensee. The very purpose of the Order can well be defeated by such a plea, which will be a valid plea because these obligations are imposed only upon the licensee and cot upon any other person. My learned brother has therefore held that the vendee therein should obtain a licence in his name as otherwise he is liable under the provisions of the Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1955.