PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. H P SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises in this appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against him under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Gift Goods (Prevention of Unlawful Possession) Act, 1965, hereinafter called "the Act", is whether the respondent is a person on behalf of the State or Central Government to whom the gift goods have been supplied.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State strenuously contended that the respondent must be deemed to be a representative of the State cr the Central Government in relation to the gift goods in question which on the findings recorded by the trial Court, were sold by him in contraventior of the terms and conditions specified in section 3 of the Act. Mr. A. Gangadhara Rao appearing for the respondent, relying upon the definition of "gift goods as defined in section 2 of the Act, contended that though the goods in questicn were supplied by way cf a gift'by one of the relief organisations mentioned in the Schedule to the Act, the respondent is not a person who received the said goods on behalf of the State or Central Government and it is only a sale purchase or transport of goods supplied by way o f gift to any St ate Government or Central Government or to any other person on behalf of such Government that would attract the penal provisions of the Act.

(3.) Therefore the only question that falls for determination is whether the respondent acted on behalf of the State Government or the Central Government in accepting the goods supplied by way of gift by one or the other relief of ganisations referred to in the Schedule appended to the Act. Section 2 says that unless the context otherwise requires, "gift goods" means any of the items referred to as items (1) to (ix) under Clause (a) of section 2 supplied by Way of gift by any relief organisation to any State Government or to the Central Government or to any other person on behalf of such Government. There is no dispute as to the fact that the goods in question are gift goods for, the item seized is item No. (viii) i.e., bulgur wheat. The lower Court also found from the evidence or record that it is a case of sale of bulgur wheat by the respondent to a third party and therefore, it is doubtless an unauthorised sale. Sub-section (2) of sectior. 7 provides that any breach of a rule made under sub-sectiot (i) shall be puinishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees.