KANHAIYA LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Kanhaiya Lal is being prosecuted in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Susner for having contravened the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Cotton Textile Control Order of 1948 by selling on 13. 1. 51, 1? yard cloth to one Nanda in excess of the control price. Soon after the charge was framed, the applicant objected to his trial for the offence on the ground that the police charge sheet on the basis of which the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence is not a report by a public servant and is, therefore, not in compliance with Section 11, Essential Civil Supplies Act, 1946 under which Act the Cotton Textile Control Order was made. The objection was rejected by the trial Magistrate. The applicant then preferred a revision petition to the Sessions Judge of Shajapur raising the additional contention that the report did not contain the facts constituting the offence alleged against him and was, therefore, not in substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 11, Essential Supplies Act. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition. The petitioner has now come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) MR. Patankar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, did not dispute before me the fact that the Sub-Inspector who filed before the Magistrate the Charge-sheet against the applicant is a public servant and the charge-sheet against the accused is a report by a public servant as required by Section 11, Essential Supplies Act. The only point pressed before me on behalf of the applicant is that there was no jurisdiction in the Magistrate to try the petitioner because the charge-sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector did not contain a report of the facts constituting the offence, but only mentioned the bare fact that the applicant had sold in "black market" 1? yards of cloth to Nanda and had thus committed an offence under Section 8, Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of Samvat 2006. It was argued that this charge-sheet was not in compliance with Section 11 and the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence on this report. In support of this contention, learned Counsel cited before me - Jayantilal Jagjivan v. Emperor AIR 1944 Bom 139 (A) and - Purushottam Devji v. Emperor AIR 1944 Bom 247 (B); - N. G. Chatterji v. Emperor AIR 1946 All 416 (C); 1949 Gwl. 66 (D ).

(3.) ON behalf of the State, Mr. Mungre contended that the accused raised no objection before the Magistrate as to the charge-sheet being defective on account of the omission therein of the facts constituting offence with which the applicant was charged; that this point was raised in the Sessions Court for the first time; and that therefore, the applicant cannot be allowed to question the validity of the charge-sheet in this Court. It was further submitted that Section 11, Essential Supplies Act was directory only, and that an omission to satisfy its provisions could not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Government Advocate sought to distinguish the cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner by saying that they related to Rule 130 (1), Defence of India Rules which spoke of a report of the facts constituting a contravention of the Defence of India Rules and not of a report of the facts constituting an offence, as Section 11, Essential Supplies Act does. It was said that there is a difference between a "report of the facts constituting an offence" and a "report of the facts constituting a contravention of Rules" such as the Defence of India Rules. It was further maintained that the charge-sheet against the applicant contains a statement of facts constituting the offence alleged against the applicant.