UPENDRA CHANDRA DEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants who are two in number have been convicted by the Judge, Additional special Court. Calcutta under section 7 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, the appellant No. 1 Upendra Chandra dey being sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months and the appellant no. 2 Nirmal Kanti Sarkar being sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

(2.) THE appellant No. 1 Upendra chandra Dey was a licensed dealer in sugar. He was granted a licence to purchase, sell and store sugar by the controller of Sugar, West Bengal under the provisions of the West Bengal sugar Dealers Licencing Order, 1969. The appellant No. 2 Nirmal Kanti sarkar was his manager in respect of the sugar business. The prosecution alleged that between the dates 16th of march 1960 and 21st of April 1960, the appellant No. 1 disposed of 660 bags of sugar in contravention of the Clauses 5 and 7 of the Licence. The appellants did not mention in the receipts granted to the purchasers their names and address. This has constituted a violation of the Clause 5 of the Licence. There was also a direction upon the appellant no. 1 not to dispose of the stock without orders from the Government. The appellants disposed of the stock in spite of this order and this constituted a violation of the Clause No. 7 of the licence. Upon these allegations a charge of criminal breach of trust under section 409 of the Indian Penal code in respect of the 660 bags of sugar was framed against the appellant No. 1. There was a charge of conspiracy, that is to say, under section 120 (B) read with section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants. They were also charged under section 7 (1)of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) THE defence contended before the trial Court that the bags of sugar in question and that he was not an agent of the Government in respect of this property. The accused person denied that there was any entrustment. The appellant No. 1 in his statement under section 342 of the Code of criminal procedure stated that the appellant No. 2, who was his employee, disposed of the sugar not knowing the rules as he found that some of the bags were water-damaged and in torn condition. The appellant No. 1 further stated that the direction not to sell the stock was received by him too late by two days. The stock was disposed of on the 24th of April 1960 while the order was actually received by him on the 26th of April 1960. The appellant no. 2 pleaded that whatever he did under the instructions of his master, the appellant No. 1.