GURUCHARAN KAUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, Koraput-Jeypore, under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'the Act') for contravention of the provisions of clause 10 of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 (for short 'the order') and clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (for short 'Order 1973'). He was found guilty of the offence, convicted thereunder and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months only.

(2.) The facts leading to the present case may be shortly stated as follows :Appellant Guru Charan Kaur is a sub-whole- sale dealer of kerosene which is an essential commodity. She was authorised to carry on the wholesale business at Balimila Nagar (Orkal). On 14-11-1984, the Supervisor, supplies, checked the business premises of the appellant and on verification found 420 litres of kerosene in excess. He also found that no board had been displayed showing the stock and price of kerosene in the said business premises. The appellant failed to explain the excess stock in her possession and non-displaying of the board. Accordingly, he seized the books of accounts, kerosene stock, the licence etc. and reported the matter to the Police Station. On the basis of the complaint a case was started which resulted in filing of charge-sheet and that is how the case proceeded before the learned special Judge, Koraput-Jaypore. The case ended in the conviction of the appellant and so she has moved this Court in appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that kerosene not being one of the items mentioned in the schedule to the Order, 1973, the trial Judge acted illegally in holding that the appellant contravened clause 3 of the said Order by not displaying a Notice Board. It is further contended that clause 10 of the 1962 Order provides that in the event of any contravention of any provision of the Order or any direction issued thereunder or any of the conditions of the licence the dealer would be liable to have his licence cancelled by the licensing authority but no penal action is provided. It is also contended that the status of the appellant was that of a sub-wholesale dealer which term came into the statute book only on 13-6-1985 whereas the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant occurred on 14-11-1984. It is urged that the learned special Judge has, therefore, acted illegally in convicting the appellant under S. 7 of the Act for contravention of clause 10 of the Order, 1962.