RAMESHCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants challenge their conviction under S.3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') read with clause 4(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Prices and Price Control) Order, 1977 (for short, 'the control order') and Madhya Pradesh Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 (for short, The orders) and sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, further one month rigorous imprisonment awarded by Sessions Judge, Indore. Though the Sessions Judge does not say so it appears that he acted as Special Court under S. 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as amended by Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 read with Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Notification No. A-1105-III-6-7-64-I, Bhopal dated 10/02/1983 by which the Sessions Judges of all the 45 districts of Madhya Pradesh were to be Presiding Officers of the 'Special Courts' established under the aforesaid provisions.

(2.) Prosecution story is that two appellants are partners of the registered Partnership Firm M/s. P. R. Trading Company carrying on business of pulses at 77, Anandnagar, Indore and hold a licence for this purpose under Licensing Order, 1977. On 26-8-1983, Food Inspector Gulabsingh (P.W. 6) checked the premises of the appellants and their accounts and found that the firm had as per three bills purchased 140 quintals 40 kilo Tuwar pulse at rates varying from 329 to 339 Rs. per quintal but had sold the same at the rate of Rs.449 per quintal. Appellant Rameshchandra was questioned about expenses on the essential commodities and the transaction. After calculation, Gulabsingh was of the view that the appellants could charge up to Rs. 419.93 per quintal and by selling at the rate of Rs. 449 per quintal had contravened clause 4(c) of the Control Order, 1977. Report was then submitted to the Collector, who in turn, forwarded it to Bhanwarkua Police Station. Challan was put up against the appellants for offence under Sections as set out in para 1 of the judgment.

(3.) Appellants in summary trial before the Sessions Judge, Indore on particulars of offence being explained denied the offence. Appellant Rameshchandra in his examination denied that he had charged more than 2% profit. He submitted that reasonable expenses had been ignored in calculating the price. Appellant Maheshkumar denied any knowledge of raid and checking. He further denied that excess profit as alleged had been made out. Appellants did not examine any witness in defence. Learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as set out in para 1 above.