MULCHAND KHATAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 7(1), Essential Supplies Act, Act 24 of 1946 and sentenced to detention till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to rigorous imprisonment for four months. An order has also been passed for forfeiture of a part of the seized cloths.

(2.) Various points have been urged before us and there has been considerable argument before us in regard to the validity of certain orders and Notifications. Before I go into that question our conclusions regarding the facts of this case may be stated. Briefly, the prosecution case was that the petitioner contravened Clause 13 of the W. B. Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948, read with Notification No. DT/TX/52/50 dated 13-10-1950, which may be compendiously described as Notification 'C' for failure to produce certain papers and documents in support of the acquisition of cloths as per Ext. I and also contravened Clause 14, W. B. Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948, read with Notification No. 413/TX/P/SR/5/49 dated 1-9-1949 (compendiously described hereafter as Notification 'B') for failure to submit monthly return of stock of cloths for the month sending in July and August, 1951. The case was tried by a Presidency Magistrate, who has come to the conclusion that the petitioner contravened paragraph 13 (1), W. B. Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order 1948, with respect to cloths mentioned in Ext. (I) which are not covered by Ext. (II). The learned Magistrate has further held that the petitioner's firm did not submit monthly return for the months ending July and August, 1951 and accordingly the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Clause 14, W. B. Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1948, read with Notification 'B'.

(3.) As regards the facts of the case, it has been contended before us by Dr. Das Gupta on behalf of the petitioner that the Cash Memos Exts. 1 series, which were produced by the petitioner, go to indicate the innocence of the petitioner. As regards this contention, however, all that need be said is that for cogent reasons the learned Magistrate did not accept the Cash Memos, Exhibits I series, at their face value. He was not inclined to accept these Cash Memos as genuine and bona fide and we do not see sufficient reason to dissent from his finding on the point.