BISHAMBER DAYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants have been convicted u/S. 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act read with Cl. 8, U.P. Flour, Rice and Dal Mills Control Order, 1948. It has been held by the Courts below that they contravened Cl. 3 of the Order by allowing "bajra" and wheat to be ground in their flour mill without having a licence. The applicants are the owners of a flour mill situated in Kakore and it was inspected by a Marketing Inspector who found that the mill was being worked by Mahboob, a servant of the applicants and that bajra and wheat were being ground. He also found that the applicants had not obtained a licence for grinding controlled foodgrains in the mill. "Bajra" and wheat are controlled foodgrains. Clause 3 of the Order is

(2.) I am surprised at the language used in this clause. I never expected such words as "no flour mill shall grind" in a formal Order of a penal nature issued by the State in exercise of the powers conferred by an Act. Something may be ground in a flour mill but a flour mill cannot be said to grind anything - an inanimate object cannot do an act and it seems to me meaningless to prohibit a flour mill from grinding anything. There is no reference to any human being in this clause. "Flour Mill" is denned in Cl. 2 to mean "a power driven flour mill other than a roller mill". With that definition staring in ones face, one cannot possibly hold that a "flour mill" is not an inanimate object commonly known as a flour mill but a person owning a flour mill, or managing or working it. If the State wanted to prohibit an owner or a manager or a servant from grinding controlled foodgrains in a flour mill without obtaining a licence, it should have said so in so many words so that the public could know whose responsibility it is to see that the prohibited act is not done. Clause 4 of the Order refers to applications for licences; this also does not refer to any human being. It does not say by whom an application should be made. Merely because the forms given in the schedule suggest that it should be made by an owner, it cannot be said that the words "flour mill" in Cl. 3 mean its owner. Clause 8 is to the effect that :

(3.) I hold that there is nothing in the U.P. Flour, Rice and Dal Mills Control Order casting any liability upon the applicants and that they cannot be punished for contravening any provision of it. The applications are allowed. The convictions and sentences of the applicants are set aside and they are acquitted. The fines, if realised from them, should be refunded.