HEMANT KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Applicant was convicted by a Magistrate 1st Class Under Section 125(9) of the Defence of India Rules for contravening Clause 4(i) of the UP Sugar Control Order, 1963 and sentenced to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - . On appeal, his conviction was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi, but he reduced the sentence to two days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - ; hence this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows. The Applicant holds a licence for selling sugar in retail at Mahroni. Sugar being a controlled commodity, he was bound to maintain a correct and proper account of the sale and stock of sugar. On 3 -9 -1964, he was found carrying 58 kilograms of sugar. Suspicion arose and accordingly, his stock was checked and then it was found that although the stock register showed 6 quintals and 55 kilograms of sugar, only 5 quintals and 99 kilograms of sugar was in stock. On these facts he was prosecuted for contravening Clause 4(i) of the UP Sugar Control Order, 1963 and punished Under Rule 125(9) of the Defence of India Rules.

(3.) IN the instant case the trial Judge was quite competent to take cognizance of the case under the rules on the report of the police officer and the sentence passed by him cannot be reversed or altered on account of the irregularity in the conduct of the search. The accused knew what offence he was being tried for and he had every opportunity to meet the same. The irregularity which had occasioned in conducting the search had not affected the case against him in any manner. The principle laid down in Slaney's case : AIR 1956 SC 116 applies and the conviction of the Applicant cannot be quashed on this ground.