BARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R.I. for two months under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Patti vide his order 7.5.1982. On Appeal, his sentence of imprisonment was reduced from one year R.I. to six months R.I. while the sentence of fine was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The petitioner has come to this Court in revision.

(2.) The short point made out by Mrs. Vanita Kataria, learned counsel far the petitioner is that no conviction under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act could be Sustained unless the prosecution is able to show that here was an order under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act which had been contravened. In this context, she has placed reliance on a D. B. authority of Calcutta High Court reported as Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Prehlad Agarwalla1 wherein their Lordships held as under: A person can be convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, only when it is proved that he has contravened any order made under Section 3 of the Act. When there was a contravention of a direction given under the notification made by the Controller in exercise of the powers given to him under paragraph 14(2) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 which was made under Section 3 of the Act and the direction was not a direction contained in the notification, the contravention of the direction could not be said to be the contravention of a provision of the Order. TI

(3.) In this case the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner has contravened any order made under Section 3 of the Act. Consequently I allow this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Revision allowed.