STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BAITAL NAHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State Govt. against the judgment dated the 12th of February, 1962 passed by the Magistrate First Class Morena, whereby he acquitted the present respondent Baital of an offence under Section 7 of the essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause 3 (c) of the M. P. Food Grains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order 1958

(2.) THE case for the prosecution was that the present respondent was on the 20th april, 1960 at about 5 P. M. found carrying 3 bags of wheat in a bullock-cart from the border of Madhya Pradesh to a place called Gholpura in Rajasthan.

(3.) THE trial Court held that the evidence on record established the guilt of the accused for contravention of Clause 3 (c) of the aforesaid Order, which was made punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It, however, acquitted the accused on the sole ground that the police had, instead of submitting 'a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence' as required by Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, submitted a regular charge-sheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The learned Magistrate agreeing with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in A. P. Misra v. The Stale, ATR 1958 cal 612 held that submission of a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of criminal Procedure could not be taken to be 'a report in writing' as required under section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. I find that the decision relied on by the learned trial Judge was dissented from in the same High Court in Nanak raj v. State, 1961 (1) Cri LJ 644 (Cal) wherein it was held that a police report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. or the charge sheet, as it is popularly called, can be classed as 'a report of the facts constituting the offence made by a public servant under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act' and cognizance can, therefore, be taken on the basis of such a charge-sheet. It appears that a charge-sheet by a police officer to the Magistrate giving facts constituting the offence committed was held by the Bombay High Court in sumatibai v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Bom 125 as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. The language of Section 11 in the two enactments being identical in terms. I am of the opinion that the interpretation placed thereon by the Bombay High Court, and in a later case by the Calcutta High Court itself as shown above tinder the Essential commodities Act, should be accepted as correct. Section 11 of the Essential supplies (Temporary Powers) Act came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Saran v. State of U. P. , AIR 1961 SC 928 Their lordships observed that the purpose of the provisions of Section 11 was to eliminate private individuals such as rival traders or the general public from initiating a prosecution, and for this purpose before cognizance is taken the complaint is required to emanate from "a public servant. " Now it is incontestable that the police officer who submitted the charge-sheet in this case is a public servant. The charge-sheet is always in writing, and it is not disputed before us that it contains a statement of all the facts necessary to constitute the offence.