STATE GOVT Vs. RAMMILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Rammilal was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- by the First Class Magistrate, Jabalpur, under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary-Powers) Act, 1946 for contravention cf Clauses 14 and 15, C. P. and Berar Sugar Control Order, 1949; but in appeal he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, has now appealed against his acquittal.

(2.) THE prosecution case was, briefly stated, as follows. The appellant, who did not hold a licence for the sale of sugar, sold one 'pao' of 'batashas' on 25. 5. 1950 to Narbad (P. W. 5) for -/10/-, although the controlled rate, as-fixed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, on 1. 12. 1949 was Rs. 1/4/- per seer. The respondent's version was that he had sold for -/5/-betel leaves and melon to Janglaji (P. W. 5), constable, batashas for -/5/- to Narbad who-was accompanied by the constable and that he had given the change of -/6/- to Narbad who had presented to him a rupee note which he had received from Janglaji.

(3.) THE defence account, which was not supported by Janglaji, was disbelieved by the-Courts below for good reasons, but the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent on the ground that as the Central Provinces and Berar Sugar Control Order related only in virtue of Clause 2 (a) to sugar of crystalline structure and not to 'batashas', the District Magistrate was not empowered to pass on 1. 12. 1949 an order concerning 'batashas' which were not sugar of that type. On 18. 10. 1949,. however, the Provincial Government substituted for Clause 2 (a) the following clause: