JAGANNATH HAZARIMAL Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the dismissal of their suit by the Second Additional District Judge, Amravati, on a preliminary finding on the issue of limitation.

(2.) The plaintiff No. 1 is a partnership firm going by the name of Jagannath Hazarimal firm doing business at Amravati and of which plaintiffs 2 to 4 are partners. The plaintiffs' case is that the partnership carried on business In cotton seed at Amravati and held a licence required for doing that business or for dealing with cotton seed under the Cotton Seed Control Order 1947. There was a local Act in the then State of Madhya Pradesh called the Specified Commodities Control Act. Under that Act Control Order could be issued in respect of specified commodities and accordingly an Order called the Cotton Seed Control Older was substituted by a similar Order in 1948. The plaintiffs had purchased cotton seed at Akola, Khamgaon and other places and there being no restrictions on transport of cotton seed within the State the firm wanted to export cotton seed after taking permit and for that purpose it despatched cotton seed by railway to Gondia for being taken to jabalpur. Cotton seed bags were taken to Jabalpur and were stocked in a godown owned by Ramprasad and Gyarsilal at Jabalpur. The cotton seed stock was stocked at Jabalpur with a view to its further transport as soon as export facilities were available. The plaintiffs case is that cotton seed bags were not stored at Jabalpur for the purpose of selling or for dealing in cotton seed which was to be covered by the regional licence. Admittedly the plaintiffs held a licence for the Amravati district under the Cotton Seed Control Order of 1947.

(3.) It was alleged that about 63 bags of cotton seed were sold at Jabalpur on or about the 16th November 1947. The police prosecuted plaintiff No. 2 Hazarimal son of Jagannath, his munim Gopilal, and two local merchants of Jabalpur, Gyarsilal and Ramprasad for the alleged contravention under Section 12 of the Specified Commodities Act read with clause (9) of the Cotton Seed Control Order 1947. The Charge was that in contravention of the Order not being possessed of any licence for the Jabalpur District the accused had sold cotton seed at Jabalpur on 16-11-1947. The accused were tried in the Court of Shri B.C. Rai, Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, in criminal case No. 40 of 1948. By his judgment dated 21-8-48 the trying Magistrate acquitted plaintiff No. 2 Hazarimal and his munim Gopilal. He however convicted Gyarsilal and Ramprasad for the offence with which they were charged. During proceedings before the Court, cotton seed bags, 1001 in number, were seized as property in respect of which offence was committed. By paragraph 16 of the judgment it was ordered that the stock of cotton seed seized may be returned to the owners. It is not deaf under what circumstances the revision application was preferred by plaintiff No. 2 Hazarimal to the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. But there is on record Exhibit P-7 which shows that by the order dated 17-12-1948, the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, after hearing the parties ordered under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the cotton seed seized be returned to the owner Hazarimal immediately.