GHASI RAM AGARWALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the conviction of Ghasi Ram Agarwalla under Section 7(3) of the Essential Supplies Act and the sentence passed thereunder of a fine of Rs. 50, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. There is also an order of forfeiture in respect of 54 tins of vegetable oil products weighing altogether 273 pounds.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly was as follows. Prosecution Witness 1, C. Rebello, a sub-inspector of police attached to the Enforcement Branch, went to the shop of Messrs. Khandu Ram Dwarka Prosad at 155/2 Bowbazar Street, Calcutta. On arrival at the shop he found animal ghee in 53 sealed tins weighing one maund 321/2 seers and along with the animal ghee he found 54 sealed tins of vegetable oil products amounting to 273 lbs. of various brands, such as "Dalda", "Kusum", "Rasoi", etc. The Petitioner was found in charge of the shop. Besides animal ghee and the vegetable oil products, the shop also contained pulses, flour, sugar, molasses, mustard oil, etc. The Petitioner was accordingly sent up in respect of the charge under Section 7(3) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravention of the provision of Clause (1) of S.R.O. 1090, dated December 23, 1950, passed under Clause 5(1) of the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947.

(3.) The accused pleaded not guilty and his defence was that he kept vegetable ghee and animal ghee separately in his shop and did not know that keeping them in the same shop was an offence. The only point urged in the lower court was that the Petitioner could not be considered a dealer in vegetable oil products as he was not an exclusive dealer in vegetable oil products but also dealt in other articles such as pulses, flour, molasses, mustard oil. etc. The learned Presidency Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that the word "dealer" as used in the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947, did not mean an exclusive dealer in vegetable oil products and as the Petitioner dealt in vegetable oil products he was a "dealer" within the meaning of that order and was, therefore, guilty of contravention of the provisions of Clause (1) of S.R.O. 1090, dated December 23, 1950, for stocking animal ghee and vegetable oil products in the same premises. In view of the fact, however, that there was no allegation of adulteration for mixing animal ghee with vegetable oil products the learned Magistrate held that the offence was of a technical nature and he therefore did not impose a substantive sentence of imprisonment but imposed a sentence of fine only of Rs. 50, and he made the order of forfeiture of the vegetable oil products seized as stated already.