RAGHUBAR DAYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision came before me on 22-12-1952 when it was argued by Mr. Chaturvedi on behalf of the applicant at some length. The case was adjourned to this date at the request of Mr. Chaturvedi, because during the course of argument it appeared that it was necessary to consider certain provisions of the Essential Supplies Act and a particular control order and some provisions of the Sale of Goods Act a little more carefully.

(2.) The facts, which have given rise to this revision, lie within a very narrow compass and are admitted on both sides. On 28-4-1951, the applicant purchased 19 maunds and 30 seers of gram from one Mr. L. P. Garg, a Magistrate of the first class, for a sum of Rs. 308/6/- the gram having been purchased at the rate of Rs. 16/3/6 per maund. The controlled rate at which gram could have been sold in April 1951 in that area was Rs. 12/- per maund. Therefore, the purchase, which had been made by the applicant, was at a much higher price than the controlled price for the commodity purchased. It appears that the Dist. Magistrate of Jhansi wanted to trap certain purchasers of Jhansi who were making purchases of gram at rates higher than controlled rates in order to stop prices soaring higher than was contemplated by the authorities who were anxious to control and stabilise prices in that area. The District Magistrate consequently ordered his subordinate Magistrate, Mr. Garg, to offer Government gram for sale at higher prices than the con-tolled rate for the commodity. The applicant coming to know that gram was available from Mr. Garg -- who, to the applicant, did not appear as a Magistrate but merely as a seller -- offered to purchase some gram at Rs. 16/3/6 per maund. As I have stated earlier, the applicant purchased 19 maunds and 30 seers of gram from Mr. Garg and. paid him the price which amounted to Rs. 308/6/-. Immediately after the sale had been completed, that is, the goods had been taken possession of and the price paid, there appeared on the scene a police officer who apprehended the applicant on the allegation that he had committed an offence under Clause 3, U. P. Rabi Food-grains Price Control Order, 1950.

(3.) The applicant was prosecuted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and he was convicted under that section for a breach of Rule 3 of the Rabi Foodgrains Price Control Order. The applicant was awarded a sentence of one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which he was ordered further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The appeal made by the applicant was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Jhansi, except in so far that the learned Judge thought it fit to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the sentence of fine only and he has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.