STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. JOGILAL KESHRIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents who run a business in foodgrains at a place called Khetia on the border of the Maharashtra State have been acquitted by the First Class magistrate, Sendhwa, of the offence of contravening one of the provisions of the madhya Pradesh Foodgrain Dealers Licensing Order, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955. The contravention was their storing, in course of their business, 155 maunds of rice ore 16-2-1959 without a valid license. While finding the facts, as alleged by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate; held that the respondents were only guilty of "haste and ignorance" and there was no mens rea; elsewhere he has suggested that the offence was only of "technical, nature". Accordingly he has acquitted them. In the State appeal it is pointed out that on the. facts themselves these appellants were liable to punishment especially because such contraventions' lead to extensive export to other States and sales at unconscionably high prices.

(2.) THE Questions in this Court are, whether they were justified because they had already obtained a license under the Madhya Bharat Agricultural Produce Markets act on 1952, which was valid on the date of the storage of the rice; further, whether the Court was right in acquitting simply by calling it a "technical offence", or one without mens rea.

(3.) THE facts are simple. Khetia is a municipal town and there is a market there constituted under the Madhya Bharat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1952 (hereinafter called "the Act of 1952" ). That Act has nothing to do with the control over the supply, distribution and sale of essential commodities; it provides for the licensing of business in agricultural produce in the declared market areas. The respondents had been licensed under that Act. Theirs seems to be a family business run by the father and son, namely, Keshrimal and Jogilal jointly; but in the relevant transactions, it was Jogilal who was playing the active part and for the purpose of the criminal prosecution it would be convenient to treat him as the only person in charge of the business.