SAVITRI KAPUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is the mutual regard between Sections 6a and 7 (i) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is the legal question which requires to be answered in this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal P. C. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked not only to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The facts on the basis of which lament has been made by the petitioners may now be noted:

(2.) S. N. Kapur predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was running an agricultural farm known as Kapur Farm situated in village Maharana, District Karnal, He had in the godown of the said farm stored 307 bags of wheat weighing 289. 24 quintals. The State of Haryana had in the meanwhile promulgated Haryana Wheat (Restriction on Stock by Producers) Order, 1973 in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Since the said Kapur was suspected to have violated the provisions of the aforesaid order a raid was conducted by the officials of the Food and Supply Department, as also the police on 22nd Aug. 1978. Since the wheat bags were found stored there, the said Kapur was arraigned as an accused in a criminal prosecution launched against him under Section 7 of the Act. Shri N. K. Jain. Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 13th Dec. 1974. found the aforesaid Kapur guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He only imposed a sentence of fine on the accused to the tune of Rs. 1,500/ -. As per his reasoning excess quantity of wheat with Kapur was 121. 24 Qtls. The same he ordered to be confiscated to the State and the remaining Wheat i. e, 168 Qtls. he ordered to be returned to the accused.

(3.) KAPUR filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence as also the confiscation order in the Court of Session. It seems that the trial Magistrate had used the word 'confiscation' in his order loosely for what he seemingly meant was forfeiture as envisaged under Section 7 (i) (by of the Act. Shri V. K. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, who disposed of the appeal of Kapur, vide order dated 12-11-1976 set aside the conviction and sentence giving Kapur the benefit of doubt on the ground that it was not affirmatively proved that the entire stock was in his possession, or even deemingly to be in his possession.