SHIAM MANOHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by four persons, viz., Shyam. Manohar, Ram Piaro, Ganga Prasad and Ram Kishore, who have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, read with Clause (V) of Section 3, U. P. Foodgrains (Movement) Control Order, 1949. Shyam Manohar and Ram Piaro have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Ram Kishore and Ganga Prasad have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each, or, in Default to undergo six weeks' rigorous imprisonment each. The offence is alleged to have been committed in October 1949.

(2.) The main point, that has been taken by the learned counsel for the applicants in this revision, is that the trial Court wrongly took cognisance of this case as there was no report in writing by a public officer giving facts constituting the offence as required by Section 11, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. It appears that the case was first investigated, by a Sub-Inspector of Police who submitted a charge-sheet through the Prosecuting Inspector of Police. The Prosecuting Inspector on the same charge-sheet, recorded a report addressed to the Magistrate and made the documents, viz.. the First Information Report which had been lodged at the Police Station and the report of recovery of certain foodgrains from the motor truck belonging to or driven by the applicant of the report. Learned counsel has contended that the report of the investigation officer in charge-sheet does not give facts constituting the offences and this is correct. That charge-sheet merely served the purpose of the report of the investigating officer under Section 173, Criminal P. C. There is no requirement that the report under Section 11, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, must be identical with the report of the investigating officer under Section 173, Criminal P. C. nor is it anywhere laid down that the two reports must necessarily be by the same officer. In order to see whether Section 11, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act has been complied with or not, therefore, the report of the Prosecuting Inspector of Police can be taken into consideration. This report has to be read as a whole with the two documents which form part of this report. The report mentions that the First Information Report & the recovery report were being attached with it. Ail the three documents read together clearly give all the facts constituting the offence. It is clearly mentioned that wheat and rice were being transported on a motor truck and that, at the time when the motor truck was caught, it was coming out of the abadi of village Purwa and going towards Maurawan. It was also mentioned therein that the destination of the grain was Lucknow. These facts clearly make out that there was contravention of the orders made under Section 3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, relating to foodgrains.

(3.) Learned counsel has further based his arguments on the fact that the report by the Prosecuting Inspector mentioned that the facts given by him constituted contravention, of Clause (v) of Section 3, U. P. Foodgrains (Movement) Control Order, 1949. The lower Court in convicting the applicants also applied the same clause. Section 11, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, does not, however, require that the report must correctly mention the particular clause of the order which has been contravened. All that is required by that Section is that the facts constituting an offence should be clearly brought out. In this case, even the provision of law, under which the punishment was to be given, was correctly mentioned being Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. There can be no doubt at all that the facts, which were given in the report and which were found to be established in the trial, clearly made out that there was contravention of the orders in Clauses (iv) or (v) and (ix) of Section 3, U. P. Foodgrains (Movement) Control Order, 1949. Since the facts were correctly mentioned and the charge framed by the Magistrate also correctly enumerated them, there has been no error which can vitiate the trial. In the report as well as in the charge framed by the Magistrate, the provision of law, under which the punishment was awarded has also been correctly mentioned as Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, The mere error in mentioning in the report as well as in the charge framed by the Magistrate the particular clause of the U. P. Foodgrains (Movement) Control Order, 1940 which had been contravened cannot, therefore, vitiate the trial or the conviction. Consequently this argument also has no force and there is no reason for interference on this ground.