GANGA ELECTRICALS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist is a dealer in electric light bulbs. In a raid, dated 9-7-1980 on his business premises the District Supply Officer claimed to have found contravention of certain provisions of U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as (the Control Order). In the memo the revisionist was described as a retailer-cum-wlholesale dealer. A stock of over 6000 bulbs of different kinds was found on his shop. THE irregularities mentioned are (1) Non-maintenance of the stock regiister (2) Non-display of stock list and (3) Omission to note particulars of the purchasers on cash memos and obtain their signatures. In a proceeding under Section 6-A Essential Supplies Act, the stock of bulbs was ordered to be confiscated. On appeal under Section 7 C of the Act. the Sessions Judge found that the revisionist being a retailer in the absence of any order by the State Government was not bound to maintain stock register under Clause 8 or display stock list under Clause 3 (5) of of the Order. But the appeal was dismissed on the finding that lie had failed to display the price list of the scheduled commodity in question (bulbs) held by him in stock for sale.

(2.) THE appellate court has clearly misdirected itself in observing that a price list was not displayed. THE seizure imemo a photostat copy of which has been filed on behalf of the revisionist itself mentions that the price list was duly displayed (MULYA SUCHI PRADARSHIT PAYA GAYA). But the appellate Judge seriously erred in assuming that the revisionist was a retail dealer and proceeding on that basis. THE seizure memo described him as a retail-cum-whole- sale dealer. If he was a whole-sale dealer he would be bound to maintain a stock register, display the stock position as well as to note names and particulars of purchasers on the cash memo which are: the three irregularities mentioned in the seizure memo. When all the irregularities pertained to a wholesale dealer alone, the real point for consideration and decision was whether the revisionist was a wholesale dealer. Only then could it be decided whether there had been any breach of the provisions of the Contra! Order. THE appellate decision is, therefore, highly unsatisfactory and the Base must be remanded for a fresh decision.