STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was tried and prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Committees Act,. 1955. It was alleged that he had stored 89 quintals of rice without a valid licence. Thus, he was liable to be punished.

(2.) THE trial Court has found that "there is no evidence on the file that the accused was indulging in the sale and purchase of Basmati rice in black market". Thus, the respondent has been acquitted. The State of Punjab challenges the order. Mr. M.C. Berry, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, contends that under the provisions of the Control Order, the storage itself is a culpable Act. It is so ?

(3.) IN view of the above, the view taken by the trial Court is in conformity with law. It calls for no interference. Delay in refiling is condoned. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.