MURARILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of following facts. The petitioner was proceeded against under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965. The violations for which action was sought to be taken were as under :

(2.) THE plea taken by the petitioner was that part of the commodities which were subject matter of alleged violation did not belong to him. A plea was also taken by him that he was an agriculturist being owner of 64 bighas of land. It was sought to be suggested that the commodities which were lying with him represented produce from the land owned by him. Contentions raised on behalf the petitioner were rejected on the ground that the identity of persons who were said to be owners of the produce were not disclosed. The fact that these persons did not put in appearance before the authorities was also taken note of. On the basis of the above, the plea taken by the petitioner was rejected. Against this, an appeal was preferred. This was dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the State has, however, stated that groundnut is definitely covered by another Order namely Madhya Pradesh Rules, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Storage Control Order, 1977. The limit prescribed was 30 quintals. The petitioner was keeping groundnut less than this. As such this argument does not help the State. The panchanama at the time of seizure, indicates that petitioner was in possession of 6 quintals 50 kgs of Oil seeds. As such, violation of the above order is not made out. Therefore, this contention is upheld.