STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VITHAL HAIR NIKATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thana setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Wada under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 read with clause 3 of Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order of 1963 relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Manipur Administration v. M. Nila Chandra Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1533.

(2.) IT is necessary at the outset to state the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order of 1963. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. in so far as it is relevant reads as follows:

(3.) THAT being the position in law, I now proceed to consider briefly the facts which gave rise to the present appeal. One N. M. Hebli who was working as a Supply Inspector at Wada went to the house of et accused on 14 the April 1964 and found that the accused had about 60 maunds of paddy of fine quality stored in his godown at Wada. He made enquiries about the stock of paddy found in the possession of the accused and made his report to the Collector of Thana who directed him to lodge a complaint with the police and on 31st August 1964 the paddy was actually attached in the presence of the panchas. The stock of paddy which was seized was kept in the godown and the godown was sealed. After the investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet against the accused for the offence under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with clause 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order of 1963. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that he had about 250 quintals of paddy in the godown that he had no licence but had purchased 100 maunds of paddy and stored that paddy along with 500 maunds of paddy belonging to five other cultivators and, according to the accused, the said five persons were paying him rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per month. The learned Magistrate found him guilty of the offence relying on the presumption under clause 3 (2 ). He held that the presumption was not rebutted and this fact together with the evidence of the accused storing foodgrains on many other occasions goes to show that the accused engaged himself in the business of storing paddy for sale the accused filed an appeal in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge at Thana who as stated above relying on the Court of the accused filed an appeal in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge at Thana who as stated above relying on the ground the record to show that the accused was engaged in business and hence the conviction was illegal. Mr. Gambhirwala is on record to prove that the accused was engaged in the business of strong for sale. In the absence of such evidence, it established that the accused has contravened clause 3 of the said order. Hence the accused is entitled to an acquittal.