OM SWAROOP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of three connected criminal revisions bristles with questions of law. The facts in each of these revisions are substantially similar and they may be conveniently disposed of together. They are directed against the orders of the III Temp. Civil and Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, affirming the conviction of the Applicants Under Section 5/8 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Act) and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 500/- each imposed on them by the SDM Bindki, district Fatehpur. The question of law which is posed is whether the complaint filed by the Marketing Inspector in each case was competent and the conviction of the Applicants pursuant to the same was valid in law

(2.) Om Swarup Applicant in one of the revisions is alleged to have installed a rice huller in his flour mill on 9-11-1964 in village Bardara. This was detected by the Marketing Inspector Sri Raj Pal Singh who found that the Applicant had no permit or license for the same. The Applicant was thus charged with having contravened the provisions of Section 5/6 read with Section 8 of the Act and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 13. Since the case can be decided purely on questions of law it is not necessary to refer to other facts relating to incidental matters such as the recovery of the various articles and other formalities duly observed in this connection. It would suffice to mention that the complaint in each case was actually filed by a Marketing Inspector who claimed to have been authorised by the licensing officer in this regard by a General Circular.

(3.) The Applicant in each case pleaded not guilty and stated that he had no rice mill and that he was never found hulling the rice.