KASHI NATH PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is at the instance of the three accused Petitioners, Kashi Nath Pal, Rabindra Nath Samanta and Gobinda Chandra Dey and is directed against two charges framed against the accused Petitioner No. 1 under Sec. 7(l)(a)(ii) of Act X of 1955 and against the other two accused persons under Sec. 8 of the said Act and for quashing the resultant proceedings being D.E.B.G.R./T. 550/73 Case No. 178 of 1972 pending before Sri B. Kundu, Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Midnapore.

(2.) A short point of law is involved in this case and the facts need not be set out in details except to the extent as is necessary for a proper consideration of the point involved. The First Information was lodged by one Sri Satya Ranjan Banerjee, Inspector of the Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, at Debra P.S, in the district of Midnapore on November 7, 1972. On November 3 and 4, 1972, the said Inspector of Police along with two other officers checked the godown of the Petitioner No. 1, Kashi Nath Pal, at the Harimati Rice Mill compound in Debra. On checking the register and upon physical verification of stock certain discrepancies were found as mentioned in the relevant list prepared at the time. Accordingly, the First Information was filed and on completing the investigation a charge -sheet was submitted on April 27, 1973, under s; 7(l)(a)(ii) of 1955 against the three accused persons. Ultimately on July 17, 1973, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed two charges against the three accused persons, as mentioned above, under Sec. 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (X of 1955). The first charge against the accused Petitioner No. 1 Kashi Nath Pal is that on or about. November 3, 1972, at Debra P.S. he being the sole distributor of fertiliser over the entire district of Midnapore failed" to maintain correct account of fertiliser of different variety in violation of Article 21 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 7(l)(a)(ii) of Act X of 1955, The second charge against the other two accused' persons is to the effect that on or about the same day and on the same place they being the manager and salesman of Messrs. Kashi Nath Pal, sole distributors of fertiliser, aided and abated the aforesaid firm Kashi Nath Pal who failed to maintain correct account of fertiliser of the said firm and thus violated the provisions of Sec. 8 of Act X of 1955 committing an offence under Sec. 7(l)(a)(ii) of Act X of 1955. The said charges were impugned as also the proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, and the present Rule was obtained on July 30, 1973, At the time when the Rule was issued an ad interim stay as prayed for was granted.

(3.) Mr. Balai Chandra Roy, Advocate/with Mr. K.D. Jaiswal, Advocate, appearing in support of the Rule raised a short point relating to the retrospective operation of a statute or an order having the force of a statute as passed thereunder. He contended that under Article 21 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957, relating to the maintenance of record and submission of returns etc. the Controller may by an order in writing direct the manufacturers, dealers or importers of fertilisers of any class thereof to maintain such books of account and records etc. or to submit to such authorities etc. as provided for under Sec. (a) and (b) thereunder. Mr. Roy contended that Clause (4) of Article 21 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957, was issued on March 19, 1973, but the date of the offence, as mentioned in the charges, is on or about November 3, 1972, which is much before the date of issue of the aforesaid order. There cannot be any offence, therefore, on a purported violation of Article 21 because a relative order thereunder was not even issued on the date of the offence. Mr. Narayan Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate, joined issue and submitted that it was rather premature at this stage to quash the proceeding or set aside the charges because the points raised would be triable' on relative evidence to be adduced.