MUKTI KUMAR GANGULY AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule raises a question whether a person who has obtained a license as agent for carrying on trade in kerosene under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, requires a separate license for every place from which he sells kerosene. The petitioner was granted a license on the 1st of April, 1952, the relevant portion of which is in these words :

(2.) Though at the time the license was issued the Form A, in which license had to be given under the Control Order had been materially altered by substitution of the original condition (1) by a new one which will be Presently mentioned, the old form was used in the present case. It seems clear that in law the license must be held to be given on the condition as amended by Government by the notification, dated the 4th Jan., 1952, by which for the old condition No. (1) the following was substituted :

(3.) On three different dates, viz., 30th May, 1952, 3rd June, and 4th June, 1952, the petitioner Hazarilal is said to have sold kerosene oil to three different persons from a store at Baniadpur. The prosecution case is that as Hazarilal held no license for sale of kerosene oil from Baniadpur and the license given to him mentioned a depot of Mohanbati, Raiganj, he contravened the provisions of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order and thereby committed an offence under section 7 of the Act (Act XXIV of 1946).