HARDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hardial Singh petitioner in this case moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Special Tribunal, Gurdaspur, dated 14th November, 1963.

(2.) The facts of this case are that Shri Surinder Singh, Prosecuting Inspector of Police, Gurdaspur, on 3rd June, 1963, at about 7 p.m. sent Raghbir Singh Constable P.W. 2 to purchase two zero watt bulbs and gave him Rs. 5. The constable above-mentioned went to the shop of the petitioner and purchased the bulbs for Rs. 4/8/- and produced the receipt (Exhibit P.A.). The receipt was on an ordinary paper, therefore, Shri Surinder Singh P.W. 1 felt somewhat suspicious about the price of the bulbs. He accordingly sent Bal Singh, P.W.5 his own Orderly to the bazar to find out the price of such bulbs and learnt that the price of one bulb was Rs. 1.85 nP. Shri Surinder Singh then asked Raghbir Singh to take him to the shop from where he had purchased the bulbs. Raghbir Singh and Shri Surinder Singh went to the shop of the petitioner which was found closed at that time. The petitioner was called from his house through Hardial Singh P.W.7. At the instance of Shri Surinder Singh the petitioner showed him the price list (Exhibit P.B.) which was hanging in the shop. Shri Surinder Singh scrutinised the same and found that the price of zero watt. bulbs was not shown in that list which was incumbent. Shri Surinder Singh then brought the petitioner to the police station where a report against him was lodged at 9.15 P.M. and after due investigation the petitioner was sent up for trial.

(3.) The petitioner denied the allegations against him when examined. He denied having sold the bulbs to Raghbir Singh as alleged and averred that on 28th May, 1963, Raghbir Singh had come to his shop to purchase banyans of the value of Rs. 5/8/- on credit but the petitioner refused to give on credit. On that Raghbir Singh threatened him with dire consequences and went away after exchanging hot words. According to the petitioner he was probably involved in this case on account of his animosity with Raghbir Singh. Some evidence was recorded by the prosecution in this case and ultimately the petitioner was convicted by the Special Tribunal. The charge against the petitioner was that he had omitted to mention the price of zero watt bulbs in the price list (Exhibit P.B.) which is not denied that it was so. The only objection taken by the petitioner's counsel was that under the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Punjab Commodities Price Marketing and Display Order, 1962, the petitioner was enjoined only to display the list of prices, during the hours of business. According to him the hours of business were over when Shri Surinder Singh along with Raghbir Singh and others went to the shop of the petitioner and asked him to produce the list. Except for this he had no other objection to the conviction of the petitioner. There is nothing, however, on the record to show as to what were the business hours in those days. According to the petitioner's counsel the shops closed at 8 P.M. in those days but he promised to produce the relevant notification which he failed to produce. I have seen the list which is a printed one from which the price of zero watt bulbs was omitted. Moreover, the learned counsel for the State has drawn my attention to Faqir Chand v. Gopi Chand, 1962 AIR(P&H) 117 wherein it is laid down that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 with order of judicial or quasi-judicial nature are not greater than those under Article 226. Under the latter Article the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of mistake apparent on the face of the record but under Article 227 the power of interference is limited to seeing that the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. Moreover, power under Article 227 is always to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases, and is clearly not meant for correcting mere errors of fact or even of law. Where it has not been shown that the Officers concerned have in any way travelled beyond the scope of their jurisdiction or have erroneously refused to perform their duty imposed upon them by law when even if their order are erroneous, that would not by itself warrant correction of the error under Article 227 of the Constitution. NAGENDRA NATH BORA vs. COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION, 1958 AIR(SC) 398 was also relied upon.