PARMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, being aggrieved by the judgment and findings dated 28.1.1991 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1990, by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, confirming the judgment dated 19.6.1990 delivered in Criminal C1se No. 108 of 1988, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarangarh, convicting the applicant under section 8 (1) read with section 13 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, has filed this revision.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the prosecution are that on 22.1.198, L.A. Thakur (P. W. 8) inspected the rice mill belonging to the applicant and found that a huller machine was found running with the assistance of 12.5 horse power motor. In the inspection, it was also found that rice barn belonging to other agriculturists was also used in the huller machine. The Food Inspector, finding breach of sections (1) and 8 (2) of the Act, after obtaining sanction from the Collector, Raigarh, filed a challan on 29.2.1988. The applicant pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the rice mill (huller mill) was in operation but could prove that the accused has established a rice mill in contravention of section 8 (1) of the Act. The accused was acquitted of the offence under section 8 (2) but was convicted for the offence under section 8 (1) of the Act and was awarded rigorous imprisonment for two months and was also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision.

(3.) The scheme of the Act is that rice milling operations should not be carried on without prior licence. The Legislature knew well that even before the commencement of the Act, some rice milling industries were in operation and some were defunct and some rice mil1s were likely to be established in future, therefore, the legislature being aware of the situation made a pointed distinction between the defunct rice mill, the existing rice mill and a new rice mill. The existing rice mill is a mill which is carrying on rice milling operations, while a defunct rice mill means the rice mill is in existence but is not carrying on rice milling operations. A new rice mill is other than the existing rice mill or a defunct rice mill. A licence is mandatory for the existing rice mill under section 6 of the Act as it is in operation and the law safeguards rice milling operation with the proper licence. On the other hand, according to section 5, an application for establishment of a new rice mill or for re -commencing a defunct rice mill may be made. Here, again the pointed distinction is to be observed. A new rice mill is yet to be established while a defunct rice mill is to be re -commenced. Either for establishment or for recommencing a rice mill, a permit under section 5 is required. If within the period of the permit, a new rice mill is est.1blished or a defunct rice mill is made workable, then these two mills are also required to obtain a licence under section 5. Rule 4 again makes a distinction between these three mills, for the purposes of section 8 (2). The learned trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution could not prove that after the commencement of the Act, the accused was carrying on rice milling operations, except under and in accordance with the licence granted under section 6: Sub -section 2 of section 8 applies to existing rice mill. Section 8 (1) of the Act forbids establishment of a new rice mill. It was not the case of the prosecution, nor was it found by the trial Court that the accused has est.1blished a new rice mill. In fact, the prosecution case is that the accused who held a licence earlier had applied for its renewal, without having a valid licence issued under section 6 was carrying on milling operations. If the allegations were proved, it could be only a case under section 8 (2) of the Act, but against his acquittal no appeal was filed by the St1te, therefore, the said acquittal has assumed finality and cannot be challenged before any Court.