RAM DIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the point of Jaw involved arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) The defence was that six Kolhoos were meant for supplying juice to the Bhatti of Ram Din Applicant and the remaining six for the Bhatti of Shanti Swarup aforesaid and as such it was not, necessary to obtain a licence by any of the two. However, on the date in question (11 -1 -1964) all the 12 crushers were supplying juice to the Bhatti of Ram Din Applicant alone and the other Bhatti was lying dead. It is also admitted that on the relevant date Ram Din Applicant was not present. It may therefore be that in the absence of the Applicant, who was a 'manufacturer' within, the meaning of Sub -clause (j) of Clause 2 of the UP Khandsari Sugar 'Manufacturers' Licensing Order, 1963, his Munshi or employees might have of their own accord fired only one Bhatti that day and started supplying juice to that Bhatti alone. The word 'Manufacturer' as defined in Sub -clause (j) of Clause 2 of the above mentioned Licensing Order does not include an 'agent' or a 'servant' of the manufacturer. It is significant that in the erstwhile UP Khandsari Sugar Manufacturers' Licensing Order, 1960, the word 'Manufacturer' was defined in Clause 2(f) which is word for word the same, as given in Clause 2(j) of the current Order, 1963, except that in the 1960 Order, an Explanation had been added to Sub -clause (f) saying that a person "shall include an agent or a servant." The absence of these words go to prove that in the current Order, the definition has been curtailed, with the result that if an agent or servant of the manufacturer is processing Rab or Khandsari Sugar, then the principal, that is the owner of the bel, cannot be held liable, though such was the position under the old Order of 1960. In other words the vicarious liability of the 'manufacturer' has been discontinued in the licensing Order of 1963. The raid of the Bel was admittedly made on 11 -1 -1964 when the order of 1963 was in force.

(3.) For the reasons discussed above the Applicant is at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly I allow the revision and set aside his conviction and sentence under Sec. 1(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for the alleged breach of Clause 3(1) of the UP Khandsari Sugar 'Manufacturers' Licensing Order, 1963. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.