A L BIRLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four connected revisions by A. L. Birla against the judgment and order dated 22nd July, 1980 of Sri P. C. Saxena, Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in four Criminal Appeals which were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and the conviction of the applicant under Section 22 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, and the sentence imposed on him was maintained.

(2.) The applicant A. L. Birla was General Manager of L. H. Sugar Factory, Pilibhit. In the year 1977 before the crushing season for sugarcane started he made an application to the Collector for grant of licence to fourteen persons whom he wanted to employ as Weighment Clerks at different purchasing centres of this sugar factory and paid the necessary licence fee. The Collector could not decide this application because there were certain complaints against some of these persons nominated as Weighment Clerks and the factory started working and these Weighment Clerks also started functioning at different purchasing centres. In February 1978, the Senior Cane Development Inspector visited some of these centres and found that the Weighment Clerks were working at those centres without having obtained any licence from the Collector, Pilibhit. Since this was a contravention of the rules framed under the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, therefore, the Assistant Sugarcane Commissioner, Bareilly filed four complaints against the applicant in respect of these various Weighment Clerks working without licence and in those four cases the applicant has been convicted as aforesaid. Hence these revisions.

(3.) The applicant deposited the necessary licence fee for these fourteen persons whom he nominated to work as Weighment Clerks at different purchasing centres of this sugar factory and made an application under Rule 87 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules for grant of licence to them. This application was made before the crushing season that year started, which usually starts by the middle of November. The licence for these fourteen Weighment Clerks was hot received by the applicant, who was occupier of this factory and in May, 1978, an intimation was sent to the occupier that licence for which he had made an application for the fourteen Weighment Clerks had not been granted. Since the Collector found that Weighment Clerks working at these purchasing centres were not licenced, he, therefore, issued a notice to the occupier to show cause why he should not be prosecuted. Then, the occupier stated that he may be granted licence with retrospective effect from the date when the factory started. The force of this contention was accepted by the Collector but the Commissioner did not agree and no licence could be granted to the occupier for these fourteen Weighment Clerks with retrospective effect and because they were working without licence the applicant was prosecuted and has been convicted as aforesaid.