BALWANT SINGH GAHLAUT Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant who is the occupier of H.R. Sugar Factory, Bareilly was prosecuted along with Rajju Singh, centre incharge, and Chhattarpal Singh, weighment clerk at purchasing centre, Rasuyia for breach of certain rules made by the State Government in exercise of its power under Sec. 29 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. All of them were convicted by a Magistrate, First Class and sentences to pay various amounts as fine.

(2.) On appeal, however, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the convictions of the centre incharge and weighment clerk, but affirmed the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 22 of the aforesaid Act for breach of Rules 87 and 96 of the aforesaid rules and maintained his sentence of Rs. 500.00 as fine on two counts under Rule 96, and on one count under Rule 87 of the Sugarcane Rules. The applicant has now come up in revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant, being an occupier of the factory residing at Bareilly which is at a considerable distance from Rasuyia where the purchasing centre is located, would not have any knowledge of the breach of Rule 96 and, therefore, could not have been convicted for the breach of the aforesaid rule. Learned counsel contends that the weighment clerk and the centre in-charge who were responsible for issuing the Parcha in accordance with Rule 96 and who on prosecution allegations, had not followed the aforesaid rule in performing their duty have been acquitted by the lower appellate court, still the conviction of the applicant, in whose case mens rea is totally absent, has been affirmed which is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel has invited my attention to an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1026 of 1961. In that case, following the decisions of the Privy Council in Sriniwas Mall Bairoliya Vs. Emperor A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 135 , a learned single Judge set aside the conviction of the occupier of the 'Ganga Sugar Corporation' as recorded for breach of Rule 96 of the rules framed under the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulations of Supply and Purchase) Act on the ground that, as the occupier was not present at the purchasing centre at the time when the alleged wrong weighment was made, he could not be convicted for breach of that rule. In this case also it is not the prosecution case that the applicant was present at the purchasing centre when the wrong Parcha in contravention of Rule 96 was issued to a cultivator by the weighment clerk or that he had and knowledge of the same. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel is on all fours with the present case.