CHHOTEY LAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist has been convicted under Sec. 3/7 Essential Commodities Act for breach of clause 3 (1) of U. P. Food Grain Dealers Licensing Order 1964. THE said clause forbids carrying on business as a dealer or commission agent without a license under the Order. Clause 3 (2) however raises a rebuttable presumption that anyone in possession of a quantity of ten quintals or more of any one food grain shall be deemed to be engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of such food grains. A dealer has been defined under Clause 2 (a) of the Order as a person engaged in this business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any one of the food grains in quantity of 5 quintals or more. THE prosecution case was that on 29-11-78 the revisionist was found in possession of 13.47 quintals of loose wheat in a room of his house. He had no licence to carry on business as a dealer. After raising the presumption under clause 3 (2) he was charged for contravening clause 3 (1) for carrying on business as a dealer. Tike revisionist had denied the allegation of storage and contended that the authorities had shown his possession of 13.4/ quintals after seizing 5 quintals of customers' wheat in the Ata Chakki of his son admittedly adjoining his residence. This defence has been disbelieved by the two courts below and no infirmity could be pointed out in this finding of fact.

(2.) THE prosecution had inter-alia relied on an admission of the revisionist that he was a small retail dealer in food grains (Ex. Ka3)on record. THE revisionist had attacked this as procured from him under duress. This document was never put to him during his examination and, therefore, cannot be read in evidence against him. Moreover, in the context of it having been obtained by the marketing inspector's following recovery of wheat it must also be held to be suspect as an involuntary confession.

(3.) COMING to the sentence I am clear that the sentence of six months' R. I. and Rs. 200/- fine errs on the side of severity. The revisionist has already been in jail for a few days. I think in the circumstances of the case the imprisonment sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.