STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MOJILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was prosecuted for an offence under Clause (3) (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965, read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. THE trial Court convicted the accused, but in appeal the case was remitted to the trial Court by the Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, as, in his opinion, the procedure prescribed under section 252 onwards of the Code of Criminal Procedure should have been followed and not the one prescribed under section 251-A of the Code. THE State has, therefore, preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that on 12-6-1967, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhnadon, on search of the premises of the respondent, seized 6 quintals of wheat,41/2 quintals of gram and 11/2 quintals of rice. As the total quantity of foodgrains exceeded 10 quintals, it was thought that the respondent ought to have taken a licence under section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Food- grains Dealers Licensing Order and his failure to do so resulted in commission of an offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. THE Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, reported the matter to the police and the police, after completing the enquiry, presented a challan before the trial Magistrate. As the case was started on a police challan, the Magistrate followed the procedure prescribed under section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. THE lower appellate Court, however, relying on the decisions of this Court in Sardar Khan v. State(1963 M P L J 566=A I R 1863 M P 337.) and State of M. P. v. Baital Nahar Singh (1971 MPLJ 322=A I R 1966 MP 5.) came to the conclusion that the procedure prescribed for cases started on a complaint should have been followed. In this view of the matter, the lower appellate Court set aside the conviction of the accused and remitted the case to the trial Magistrate for a fresh trial.

(3.) IT is no doubt true that the prosecution in State of M- P. v. Baital Nahar Singh (supra) was under the Essential Commodities Act where the fiction created under section 20-G of the Opium Act was not available. In our opinion, however, that does not make any difference for the reasons that follow. Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act reads as under: