MEHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge whereby he dismissed the petitioners appeal from an order of a Magistrate convicting him u/s. 7, Essential Supplies Ordinance (No. VII of 2003) as amended by the Patiala & E.P. States Union Ordinance No. XXXV of 2006 and sentencing him to one year's R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The exact words of the charge against the petitioner were that on 18 -8 -2008 he sold 25 seers of sugar to Roshan Lal Confectioner of Kapurthala at the rate of Rs. 1/8/ - per seer which was in contravention of the control rate.

(2.) IT was alleged that the petitioner who is an agriculturist by profession got some sugar on the occasion of his daughter's marriage and later on when he did not require the sugar he came to the confectioner and wanted to sell it at a rate more than the control rate. This fact became known to one Rup Lal who informed the local Police. The services of a bogus purchaser of the name of Roshan Lal were then secured and the petitioner was caught almost red -handed. It is also alleged that from the possession of the petitioner a currency note worth Rs. 10/ - which had been given to him by the confectioner was procured. The petitioner's defence was that he went to the confectioner's shop merely to exchange the sugar in question which was brown sugar with a better kind of sugar. He also examined a number of witnesses in defence. The trial Magistrate in a very lengthy judgment discussed the prosecution as well as the defence evidence and came to the conclusion that the defence version was false that the petitioner did sell sugar to the confectioner at the rate of Rs. 1/8/ - per seer and he was guilty of the offence with which he was charged.

(3.) AS regards the first legal objection from what I have observed above regarding the words of the charge framed by the trial Magistrate it will have to be admitted that it was highly defective, because in addition to the rate at which the petitioner was alleged to have sold the sugar to the confectioner the control rate should also have been mentioned therein. Since one of the ingredients to be proved in this case was that the petitioner sold sugar at a rate more than the control rate omission of the charge to say anything about the control rate amounts to a serious defect and in my opinion, prejudiced the petitioner in his defence.