BADRI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHAY PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the accused against their conviction under section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for contravention of clause 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing; Order, 1959, passed by the Magistrate 1st Class, Mandla, in Criminal Case No. 612 of 1965, dated 23-4-1966, as affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1967, dated 15-11-1967.

(2.) IT has not been disputed by the prosecution and moreover, it is amply established from the material on record that prior to the date of the alleged offence, which was said to have taken place on 30-6-1961, the petitioners, who are the real brothers and were carrying on business at 3 different places, namely, at Mandla, at Bamni-bazar and at Nainpur, all situated in Mandla district. In those shops they used to deal in controlled commodities, which might be governed by different orders passed under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. They held separate licences in respect of the three shops located at these places. However, just before the alleged offence they had surrendered those licences to the authorities on account of some difference with the local authorities We are not concerned with the details of those differences.

(3.) SO far as the defence contention is concerned that 45 bags were meant to be delivered at Nainpur and 35 bags at Bamni-bazar, the said fact is amply corroborated by the material tendered on behalf of the prosecution. Not only the prosecution witnesses almost all supported that allegation, but the documentary evidence was furnished by the prosecution itself to indicate that Ramkrishna, broker, (P. W. 9) had purchased 80 bags of sugar for the petitioners from Nanhelal (P. W. 6), proprietor of the Misthana Vikreta Sangh, Jabalpur. Out of the said 80 bags, 45 had been purchased in one lot for delivery at Nainpur ; while 35 bags had been purchased in another lot and were meant to be delivered at Bamni-bazar. Undoubtedly, both the shops situated at these two places belonged to the petitioners. These 80 bags were transported in the truck belonging to Jamanlal (P. W. 1). The said truck was being driven by the driver, Abdul Majid (P. W. 2). SOme of these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution as they refused to support the prosecution case that 80 bags were meant to be delivered at Mandla only. As already observed by me earlier, these 80 bags were to be delivered at two different places and this fact is amply established from the material on record furnished by the prosecution itself. In this connection I might also refer to the testimony of Shri P. G. Kothari (P. W. 3), Food Officer, Dharamchand Jain (P. W. 4), and Dharampal (P. W. 5), Food Procurement Inspector, which clearly indicates that these 80 bags were not to be delivered to the petitioners at Mandla. But they were meant to be delivered at Nainpur and Bamni-bazar. However at the Mandla Octroi-post Mohanlal (P. W. 7), the Tax-Gollector, collected octroi-duty from the petitioners, which the petitioners paid, probably under protest. It is rather surprising that this Municipality collected octroi- duty on goods merely passing through Mandla Municipal limits, which were not meant to be unloaded at Mandla. However illegal the action of the Municipality may be, we are not concerned with that aspect in the present case. But this defence suggestion, in my opinion, is fully established from all this evidence, as also the documentary evidence furnished by the prosecution itself.