STATE GOVERNMENT Vs. BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Bhagwan of Chand a was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 under Section 7 (1), Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 by the First Class Magistrate, Chanda, for contravention of Clause 3 (1), Central Provinces and Berar Food grains Control Order, 1945; but in appeal he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chanda. The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, have now filed an appeal against the acquittal.

(2.) THE prosecution case was, briefly stated, as follows. G. R. Dawe (P. W. 1), food supply inspector, had on 27th September 1919 come to know that the respondent had purchased 3 bags of bagad from Rao Saheb Fadnavis of Mul through his agent Murlidhar (D. W. 1); and on the following day, when G. E. Dawe inspected the respondent's shop in the Chanda Bazar, he found there 6? bags of bagad which weighed 15 maunds and 22? sesra, although he did not possess a licence for wholesale business. Thereafter, on 29th October 1949, G. R. Dawe submitted the report Exhibit P-2 to the Food Officer and the respondent was in due course prosecuted.

(3.) IN examination, he asserted that he had retained 3 bag of bagad in his shop for sale and that the 3 other bags which he purchased from Murlidhar (D. W. 1) were intended for consumption in his house, On 27th September 1949, how fiver, G. R. Dawe's peon directed him to transport to the shop the three bags purchased by him on that day from Murlidhar. The latter referred to the fact that the respondent had when purchasing the 3 bags from him told him that they were for his own con summation. These bags were carried in Mahadeo D. W. 2's thela to the respondent's shop, although his residential house is not connected with his shop in the bazar. Mahadeo added that the respondent told him that the bags were for his use, but when ho was proceeding with them in the thela, a peon halted it. The witness accordingly apprised the respondent of what had happened and when the respondent arrived and told the peon that the bags were for his own use the peon went away without having directed the bags to be placed in the shop.