PANCHAM LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by Pancham Lal, who has been convicted under Rule 25 of the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Rules 1938 framed Under Section 30 of the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938 for contravention of Rule 19(6) and Rule 19(8) of the rules and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 51/-, or in default to undergo R.I. for one month.

(2.) The applicant was incharge of the Dhaneta cane purchasing centre of the H.R. Sugar Factory Ltd., Bareilly. On 1st April, 1953 a surprise inspection was made of that centre by Sri P.P. Malviya, the Sugarcane Inspector U.P. He found the weighbridge on balance position giving different readings ranging from 4 seers to I mound and 16 seer. The lever was not properly sealed and looked as required under the rules. It was loosely screwed, and the screw and iron cap could be taken out by hand. The prosecution therefore contended that the weighbridge was exposed to tampering and manipulation and the acts complained of were in breath of Rule 19(6) and Rule 19(8) of the Rules.

(3.) The breach was noted by the cane Inspector in his notes of inspection and a copy was forwarded to this ''occupier" H.R. Sugar Factory, Bareilly in terms of Rule 25(4) of the rules calling upon the "occupier" to show cause why prosecution should not be launched for these irregularities. The Sugar Factory sent a reply to the effect that there was nothing wrong in the balance and that it was corrected and adjusted whenever report was received of its having gone out of order. On receipt of that reply the sugarcane Inspector submitted a report to the cane Controller saying that the explanation submitted by the factory was vague and evasive and he suggested that a prosecution be launched. The matter was finally brought to court upon a complaint that was made presumably in accordance with the rules.