STATE OF UP Vs. RAM KRISHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are 13 connected appeals against the judgments and orders of a learned First Class Magistrate of Fatehgarh, acquitting the Respondents Under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause (8) of the UP Khandsari Sugar Manufacturer's Licensing Order, 1960 for contravention of Clause 3(1) of the said Order.

(2.) It appears that the Respondents in Govt. Appeals Nos. 978, 979, 1058, 1065 and 1067 of 1964 are Ram Krishna, Harish Chandra and Chandra Prakash, while the Respondent in Govt. Appeals Nos. 1059, 1060, 1061 and 1062 of 1964 is Sarnam Singh, the Respondent in Govt. Appeals Nos. 1064, 1066 and 1068 of 1964 is Bengali Lal and the Respondent in Govt. Appeal No. 1063 of 1964 is Hari Babu. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 978 of 1964 the prosecution alleged that the Respondents operated two centrifugal machines for the manufacture of Khandsari sugar during the season 1961 -62 in village Prithi Darwaza without obtaining a licence for the same as required by Clause 3(1) of the Khandsari Sugar Manufacturer's Licensing Order, 1960 - -hereinafter called the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 979 of 1964 the prosecution alleged that the Respondents operated one power -crusher and one bel containing 18 Kolhus for the manufacture of Rab for conversion into Khandsari sugar during the season 1961 -62 in village Kunda Mazra Ahmadganj PS Kaimganj, without obtaining a license as required by Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 1058 of 1964 the prosecution allegations were that the Respondents operated one bel containing 10 Kolhus in village Mahadeopur, Tahsil and PS Kaimganj for the manufacture of Rab and its con - version into Khandsari sugar during the season 1961 -62, without obtaining a licence for the same as required by Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 1065 of 1964 the prosecution alleged that the Respondents operated two hand -driven centrifugal machines at Prithi Darwaza, Kaimganj and three bels - -one each at village Ahmadganj, PO Ataipur, Mahadeopur, PS Raipur and village Giraspur, PO Kampil, without obtaining licenses for the same as required by Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to the Govt. Appeal No. 1067 of 1964, the prosecution alleged that the Respondents operated one bel of 15 Kolhus for the manufacture of Rab for conversion into Khandsari sugar during the season 1961 -62 without obtaining a licence for the same as required by Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 1062 of 1964 the prosecution allegations were that the Respondent operated one bel of 10 Kolhus in village Bazitpur, PS Shamshabad, for the manufacture of Khandsari sugar/Rab during the season 1961 -62 without obtaining a licence for the same as required by Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 1061 of 1964 the prosecution allegations were that the Respondent operated one hand -driven centrifugal machine in village Lahra for the manufacture of Khandsari Sugar/Rab during the season 1961 -62 without obtaining a licence for the same as required by Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 1060 of 1964 the prosecution alleged that the Respondent operated one hand -driven centrifugal machine at village Lahra and worked two bels - -one at village Bhakusa and the other at village Harisinghpur - -for the manufacture of Khandsari sugar/Rab during the season 1959 -60, without obtaining a license for the same as required by Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 1059 of 1964 the prosecution alleged that the Respondent operated two bels in village Bhakusa for the manufacture of Khandsari sugar/Rab during the season 1960 -61, without obtaining a licence for the same as required by Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 1064 of 1964 the prosecution alleged that the Respondent operated one hand -driven centrifugal machine for the manufacture of Khandsari sugar at Prithi Darwaza, Kaimganj during the season 1960 -61 without obtaining a licence for the same as requited by Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 1068 of 1964 the prosecution allegations were that the Respondent operated one hand -driven centrifugal machine at Prithi Darwaza, Kaimganj for the manufacture of Khandsari sugar during the season 1961 -62 without obtaining a license for the same as required Under Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 1066 of 1964 the prosecution alleged that the Respondent operated one bel of 12 Kolhus for the manufacture of Rab in village Akakhaire for its conversion into Khandsari sugar during the season 1961 -62 without obtaining a license for the same as required by Clause 3(1) of the Order. In the case giving rise to Govt. Appeal No. 1063 of 1964 the prosecution alleged that the Respondent and one Jai Narain Paliwal, since deceased, operated two hand driven centrifugal machines in Kampil Road, Kaimganj for the manufacture of Khandsari sugar/Rab during season 1959 60 without obtaining a licence for the same as required by Clause 3(1) of the Order. On these allegations the Respondents were prosecuted for contravention of Clause 3(1) of the Order i.e. for operating the centrifugals or and bels without obtaining prior licences for doing so.

(3.) Ram Krishna, Harish Chandra and Chandra Prakash, Sarnam Singh and Bengali Lal did not dispute the prosecution allegations that they were operating the centrifugal machines or and bels at the material time and place and their sole defence was that as they were not manufacturing Khandsari sugar, they were not required to obtain any licence. Hari Babu, denied that he operated any crusher or centrifugal hand -driven machine either alone or with Jai Narain Paliwal. In the alternative he also disputed his liability to obtain a licence for operating them. The learned Magistrate held that as the presecution had failed to prove that the Rab or sugar allegedly recovered from the possession of the Respondents contained more than 90% sucrose, they could not be held to have manufactured Khandsari Sugar as defined in the Order and consequently, they could not be held guilty Under Clause 3(1) of the Order for not obtaining licences for operating their centrifugals or/and bels and he, therefore, ordered their acquittal. Hence these appeals. As the main point involved in all these appeals is the same and they were also connected and heard together, it will be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment.