STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HIRALAL MANILAL MODY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opponent in this case one Hiralal Manilal Mody is a sweetmeat seller. He prepares sweet-meats and also sells them. Upon information received, the Inspector of Rationing raided his residential premises, his shop, where he sells sweet-meats and his godown. Nothing was found in the shop which could be objected to under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Bowers) Act, 1946, but in the residential premises of the opponent there were found 165 lbs. of wheat and wheat flour and 277 lbs. of rice. Other things were also found, but it is not necessary to refer to them for the purpose of the present appeal. The opponent in this case was possessed in respect of the persons who were living with him in his residential premises nine ration cards and it is not in dispute that if the opponent was entitled to have in his possession all that would be warranted by these nine ration cards he was in possession of 106 lbs. of rice in excess of what he could possess. The opponent's defence, however, was that besides these nine ration cards he had six ration cards which could be taken into consideration in deciding what quantity of cereals he could lawfully possess. These ration cards were of six servants. They were not domestic servants but they were servants employed by the opponent in preparing the sweet-meats and in selling them at his sweet-meat shop and their ration cards are in the name of one of them as the head of the family. The ration cards have got to give not only the name of the individual in respect of whom they are issued but except in the case of individual ration cards the name of the head of the family. It was the opponent's case that even so he was entitled to keep in his possession rice under the ration cards of these six servants because they were his servants and should be regarded as part of the household. The reason for the contention that they were "part of the household" would appear from the Essential Articles Restricted Acquisition and Possession Order, 1943. The opponent was prosecuted for an offence under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. That section makes penal a contravention of an order made under Section 3 and it is not in dispute that the Essential Articles Eestricted Acquisition and Possession Order, 1943, is an Order made under Section 3 because of the provisions of the Act. Clause 3-A of the Order says that no person shall, on and after such date as may be notified by the Provincial Govt. in the Official Gazette in respect of any area, have in his possession or under his control, any essential article in excess of the normal quantity except under the authority of and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by an officer authorised by the Provincial Govt. in this behalf. The word "normal quantity" has been defined by Clause 2, Sub-clause (2) of the same Order. That sub clause says that "normal quantity" means in relation to the quantity of any essential article required by any person, such quantity as would be required for use and consumption in the household or establishment or of the animals in the custody of that person during a period of one month or such longer period as ought fairly to be allowed in view of the existence of any speaial circumstances: Provided that in respect of any area the Provincial Govt. may by notfn. in the Official Gazette prescribe any special basis for determining the normal quartity and thereupon the normal quantity shall be reckoned in such area on the said basis and for this purpose a householder in such area shall be deemed to require as his normal quantity the aggregate of the quantities reckoned on the said basis in respect of each member of his household including such servants as form part of the household.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the Provincial Govt. has by notfn. taken action under the provisions. But the opponent contends that taking, that quantity as normal quantity in respect of each individual he is entitled to have it multiplied not by nine but nine plus six on the ground that the servants to whom the six ration cards belong form part of his household.

(3.) SO far as 484 pounds of flour which was found in the godown of the opponent is concerned, he did not claim either that he had a licence or that he had any ration cards in respect of which he held the quantity. His defence was that what was found as a matter of fact was not wheat flour but was a flour of maize.