DEPUTY RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 1566 of 1956 rejecting the Revision Petition against an order of the Civil and Sessions Judge Agra upholding the conviction of the appellant by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Agra dated Jan. 18, 1965.

(2.) The Magistrate held the appellant guilty of violation of Clause 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order, 1964 made to exercise the powers under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Sec. 7 of that Act. He was charged with having been in possession of 15 bags of flour (maida) weighing about 131/2 quintals without any licence or permit. The appellant never contested this fact but he pleaded not guilty to the charge raised against him. Clause 3(1) of the Licensing Order which provided for licensing of dealers reads:

(3.) Under sub-clause (b) 'foodgrains' is defined as any one or more of the foodgrains specified in Schedule I to the Order including products of such foodgrains other than husk and bran. The Schedule contains a list of twelve kinds of foodgrains including wheat and as Maida is a product of wheat it would certainly be covered by the definition of foodgrains.