SITAL PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sital Prasad was prosecuted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary powers) Act, 1940, read with Section 3, U. P. Food Grains Control Order of 1949. He was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 500, or in default to undergo two months further rigorous imprisonment. He filed an appeal against his conviction before the learned Sessions Judge of Eae Bareli who upheld the order of conviction but reduced the sentence by quashing the sentence of imprisonment maintaining only the sentence of fine of Rs. 500 or in default two months' rigorous imprisonment; the trial Court had also passed an order that the food grains seized should be forfeited and its price credited to the Government. This order of forfeiture was also maintained by the learned appellate Court.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the petitioner as disclosed by the first information report as well as by the evidence produced in the case would appear to be that the petitioner, is a dealer in food grains in the town of Jais, which is declared to be a purchasing centre under the U. P. Food Grains Control Order, 1949. On 8th November 1950, at about 11. A. m. Sri Saxena, D. R. F. C. (Deputy Eegional Food Controller), Sri Chandrapal Singh, Sub-Inspector of Rae Bareli and sri Sheo Shanker Singh Deputy R. M. O. , Lucknow, inspected the godown of the applicant in jais and recovered 32 mds. 30 srs. 4 chhtks. of wheat, 29 mds. 39 srs. 8 chhtks. of paddy, 6 mds. 39 srs. of rice and 3 mds. 35 srs. of barley from it. As the petitioner was not found in possession of any licence authorising him to store goods for sale, he was prosecuted for the contravention of section 3, Sub-clause (1), U. P. Food Grains Control Order, 1949, and convicted as mentioned above.

(3.) THE defence of the applicant was that he was not a dealer in foodgrains at all and the prosecution case that he was a dealer in food grains was false. He, however, clearly admitted the recovery of food grains from his godown and alleged that as a godown-keeper he merely kept the food grains for safe custody on a charge of 1 anna per bag for the use of his godown. These bags used to be left at his godown by business people and he had nothing whatsoever to do with the sale of the commodity contained in them. In fact, he had no power to sell them.