BIJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vivek Dhaka, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rakesh Chandra Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.03.1990 passed by Sri D.N. Takhral (Then Special Judge, Meerut) in E.C. Case No. 9/85 (State Vs. Bijendra) whereby the accused revisionist has been held guilty under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and has been sentenced to undergo three months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further three months R.I.

(3.) In grounds of appeal, it has been mentioned that despite the revisionist not having been found guilty for breach of provision of U.P. Food Grain and Other Essential Articles Distribution Order, 1977, U.P. Sugarcane, Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962 and U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962, he has been found guilty for not displaying the price list under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977 (to be referred from here on-wards as Order of 1977). The trial court has failed to appreciate the provision under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, as in view of the same read with Explanation to the Section 10, the Company includes a firm or other association of individual, thus a Co-operative Society was a company under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act and as such the revisionist being a salesman could not be fastened with the liability unless the other members of the Society responsible for obtaining license were prosecuted. Revisionist is a clerk. No sanction order has been obtained from the District Magistrate as required under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, therefore, the entire proceedings are ab-initio void. Further it is mentioned in the grounds that the sentence awarded to the revisionist is highly exaggerated because no substantial harm was caused by the alleged breach to either general public or to any individual, therefore, the adequate reasoning has not been given in awarding the sentence of three months. It is also mentioned that the fine was also highly excessive and thus the conviction and sentence needs to be set-aside and the revisionist should be released.