LAWS(ALL)-1976-5-7

KHACHAR MAL Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On May 20, 1976
KHACHAR MAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been moved by Khacher Mal, hereafter called accused-applicant, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that proceeding under Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, the Price Display Control Order, and Vanaspati dealers licensing order, pending against him in the Court of Magistrate, be quashed.

(2.) THE facts, leading up to this application, can briefly be stated as under. THE applicant is owner of Truck No. UPB 8939. On 12th May, 1970, the police of Police Station Khair district Aligarh, received information through one Ram Kishore, that the accused applicant was selling Vanaspati Ghee, he purchased five tins of Ghee from him at the rate of Rs. 165/- per tin, that he had paid Rs. 100/- as advance to the accused applicant and that the applicant was to deliver the Ghee at his house by the truck that day. This information the Sub-Inspector, along with some constables, went to the Chauraha of Kasba Khair and, as soen as his truck No. UPB 3839 reached that crossing, it stopped and four tins of Vanaspati Ghee of Golden Arrow brand and one tin of Vanaspati Ghee of Goat brand, were seized from the truck. THE accused applicant was himself present at the truck at that time. On the above facts charge sheet was submitted for the prosecution of the accused applicant for contravention of U. P. Vanaspati Dealer Licensing Order, 1969, and U. P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1971.

(3.) IT is own case of the applicant that he has already entered appears in the Court of the Magistrate and even a charge has been framed against him. When an accused has entered appearance before a court of law to answer accusations, the proper course on his part is to raise such objections before the Magistrate himself and to invite finding thereon. Such a view was expressed by this Court also in the case Agra Electric Supply Company and another v. State of U.P., and another (1). In the instant case no application in writing was moved on behalf of the applicant in the court below raising an objection to the effect that, for the reasons indicated above, the Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order, 1969, and the Price Display Control Order, 1971, did not apply to him and, consequently, the prosecution against him was misconceived. If an objection in writing to that effect had been raised, the Magistrate would have enquired into the same and would have disposed of the same by a formal order. Instead of raising such an objection, the applicant has come straight to this Court in order to agitate that point which does not appear to be expedient.