CHOTTEY LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937 provides in Section 3 that the Central Government may, after previous publication by notification the official Gazette, make rules fixing grade designations to indicate the quality of any scheduled article, defining the quality indicated by every grade designation, specifying grade designation marks to represent particular grade designations, authorising a person or body of persons subject to any prescribed conditions, to mark with a grade designation mark any article in respect of which such mark has been prescribed or any covering containing or label attached to any such article and specifying the conditions. The Schedule contains among other things 'Dairy produce'. Under the above provision, the Central Government made, in 1938 certain Rules which were called the Ghee Grading and Marking Rules, 1938. By these Rules which were applied to Ghee produced in India, they fixed the grade designation to indicate the quality of Ghee as set out in Column 1 of Schedule I of the Rules and also prescribed the colour design as set out in Schedule II thereof as the grade designation mark. In 1950 the grade designation mark was altered. The mark, as now prescribed and set out in the Schedule substituted by the Rule made in 1950 shows a design with the words 'Ag -mark' in English, with an outline Map of India, and the words 'Agmark' and certain other words in Deb Nagri. One design is prescribed for special grade of Ghee and another for the general Grade of Ghee, In Schedule I which prescribes grade designation and defines the quality, two qualities are shown, one for the special grade, another for the general grade. Both these qualities require a minimum which is admittedly above the ordinary quality of Ghee available in the market and certainly above the quality of adulterated Ghee. The necessary result on the market is that inferior quality Ghee, if marked with the prescribed 'Agmark' design, would fetch a much better price than otherwise.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the two appellants before us agreed on a scheme to use labels showing the design as prescribed by the 1950 Rules referred to abovc on tins containing inferior quality adulterated Ghee and that for this purpose they actually got hold of number of labels very similar in design to the prescribed mark, used them on some tins of Ghee and stored them for sale in their shops. It is said that on the 6th May, 1954, the shop of appellant Santlal was searched, a number of tins of Ghee with such labels was found in his shop, and a bundle of 296 such labels was also found inside a box. The shop of the appellant Chottey Lal, was searched on the same date and six tins with similar labels affixed were found. Prior to the search, it is said, a Police Officer, Ardhendu Sekhar Sarkar, had gone to Santlal's shop and offered to purchase three mds. of Ghee, posing as an Order Supplier outside Calcutta and was shown 2 or 3 tins with label affixed which appeared to him to be counterfeit Agmark labels. As Santlal had not the necessary quantity in his own shop, Santlal, it is said, took him to Mahalakhi Bhandar at 11 Burtolla Street where he had talk with the other appellant Chottey Lal and thereafter Santlal agreed to supply the quantity demanded by the Officer, There also, the officer was shown some tins of Ghee with labels which appeared to the Officer to be counterfeit Agmarks.

(3.) THE defence was that there was no such conspiracy, that even if the labels found on tins seized from the shops be in fact counterfeit, the accused persons did not know that, having honestly obtained them from bigger merchants for the purpose of carrying on their retail business. The story that the 296 labels were found in Santlal's shop was also denied.