SADHU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by one Sadhu Ram against his conviction under S. 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and the sentence of Rs. 250/-fine, or four months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine, imposed upon him. The six maunds of sugar in respect of which the offence has been held to have been committed was forfeited to the Government.

(2.) The petitioner is one of the partners or proprietors of a firm styled Tulsi Ram Sadhu Ram, holding licence for sale of sugar within a certain area known as the Halqa Patta. On 14-7-1950 he was found carrying six maunds of sugar on three mules at a distance of about two miles from his shop. There were two charges laid against him one being that he was attempting to transport sugar into Kangra District beyond the State of Bilaspur; but of this charge he was acquitted. He was, however, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid for attempting to sell sugar outside the precincts of his shop in contravention of an order of the Civil Supplies Officer, Bilaspur, dated 26-11-1949. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and now he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner took up three grounds. The first was that the order in question passed by the Civil Supplies Officer did not on its true interpretation prohibit sale of sugar beyond the precincts of the petitioner's shop. The second was that the order was not notified to the petitioner. And the third was that the order in question passed by the Civil Supplies Officer under clause 6 of the Bilaspur Province Sugar (Distribution and Price) Control Order, 1949, was an order passed without jurisdiction. Since, while the Central Government could delegate powers under S. 4 of the aforesaid Act to the Chief Commissioner, the latter could not sub-delegate those powers to the Civil Supplies Officer.