RAMJI PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities act (10 of 1905), hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with Clause 2 of the orissa Food Grains Dealers Licencing Order 1964 (which came into force on 10-1264, that is, the very day of occurrence) hereinafter referred to as the Order, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo R. I. for six months. The seized paddy and rice were ordered to he confiscated to the State.

(2.) THE Inspector of Supplies (P. W. 1) searched the house-cum-shop of the petitioner on 19-12-1964. 30 quintals of paddy and 55 quintals of rice were detected to have been stored. Prosecution case is that though the petitioner was a dealer, he had no licence for storing rice or paddy for sale. The defence of the petitioner was that he had no business in paddy and rice. He and his brother were members of a joint family and the paddy and the rice seized were the yield from their land, The learned Magistrate examined the evidence on behalf of the petitioner and concluded that he failed to establish that the seized paddy and rice came from the produce of the land as in his view the petitioner was a dealer and stored paddy and rice above the permissible quantity without any licence, he found him guilty.

(3.) MR. Misra contended that though the petitioner stored paddy and rice above the permissible quantity, he was not a dealer and no licence was necessary for storage of paddy and rice for sale on a single occasion. To appreciate this contention, the relevant law on the point may be examined.