NIRMAL KUMAR GHOSH Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted of having committed an offence punishable under. Section 7,(1) of Act xxiv [24] of 1946, that is to say of having sold paper above the price fixed by the Government of India and has been sentenced to pay a fine of us. 1000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE case against the appellant briefly is this: The appellant is a dealer in paper. On 4th March 1948, Sub Inapector Sarkar of the Enforcement Branob sent a teat purchaser Bajrangi. Jal with marked notes to purchase paper from the acoused. The accused is alleged to have charged Es. 83 for three reams of paper although the controlled rate was ks. 5 5 -0 per ream. as soon as the purchase was made the Sub -Inspector came into the shop, seized the paper, made a search and then sent up the accused for trial. The defence of the accused is that ha did not sell any paper at all and that he took an advance of En. S3 from the purchaser for supplying a special kind of paper namely oiled paper. I should mention here that the price of an. 5 -3 -0 per ream is fixed for foolscap paper. There is apparently no fixed price for oiled paper. The learned Magistrate has disbelieved the defence and convicted the accused.

(3.) SECONDLY , I would point out that a written statement of the accused is no substitute for an examination under 8. 842, Criminal P. C. In this connection I would refer to the observations of Eankin J. as he then was, in the case of Pro -moiha Nath y. Emperor : AIR1923Cal470 The observations appear at page 522. His Lordship said: