STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MORARJI HIRJI MARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State Government for enhancement of sentence. The accused -respondents were prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act. On August 12, 1972 inspector Purohit on information visited the Galas 6 and 7, 8 Galli and found that the accused had stored ninety -two bags of wheat in those Galas. According to the prosecution, as per the licence issued to the accused, the accused were not authorised to store the foodgrains at the places other than those mentioned in the licence and admittedly these places were not the one authorised by the said licence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that they had filed proper returns to the rationing authority. According to them, the bags of wheat were duly accounted for in their account book. They admitted that about ninety -two baga of wheat were kept at a place other than those mentioned in the licence, but they explained further that the baga of wheat ware kept in transit. The accused further admitted that they had not notified about change of place within forty -eight hours.

(2.) AFTER appreciating all the evidence on record, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, came to the conclusion that the accused had committed breach of condition No. 2 (b) of the licence. In view of this, he found them guilty and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each, or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate further directed that the amount of Rs. 9,450 with interest, deposited in the State Bank of India, be returned to the accused. So far as this latter part of the order is concerned, the State Government has filed a separate revision application in that behalf and, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with that aspect of the matter in this appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, on behalf of the accused their conviction under Section 7 of the Act is challenged on the ground that the contravention of the conditions of the licence issued under the Maharashtra FoodgrainsDealers' Licensing Order, 1968, referred to hereinafter as the Licensing Order, is not a contravention of the Licensing Order itself, which is made punishable under Section 7 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel for the accused, condition No. 2(b) of the licence is merely a condition of the licence and is not a part and parcel of the Licensing Order. Under Section 7 of the Act, only the contravention of the Licensing Order is made punishable and the condition of a licence not being a part and parcel of the main Licensing Order, the said contravention of the licence is no punishable under Section 7 of the Act, Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the accused, the conviction of the accused under Section 7 of the Act is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the accused has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz. East India Commrl. Co. v. Collector of Customs : 1983(13)ELT1342(SC) and Boothalinga Agencies v. V.T.C. Poriaswami : [1969]1SCR65 .