LOK RAM AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are as under:

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners first submitted that Major portion of the statement which Ramphal is alleged to have made under section 27 of the Evidence Act is inadmissible and only that portion of the statement, which led directly to the recovery of the incriminating article, can be said to be admissible. It is true that there levant statement is very exhaustive and most part of it is inadmissible. Only that portion of the statement which led to the recovery of 143 bags of Khandsari from the brick -kiln of Lok Ram, is admissible. The counsel then invited my attention to clause 3(3) of Punjab Khandsari land Gur Dealers Licensing Order 1963 which came into force on 18th July, 1963. according to which 'any person who stores Khandsari or Gur or both in any quantity exceeding 50 quintal at any one time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store Khandsari or Gur or both, as the case may be, for the purpose of sale." The counsel contended that the petitioners did not possess any licence of dealers, and even if we corns to the conclusion that the recovery of Khandsari had been effected from them, they could not be convicted under section 7 of the Act unless there was some other evidence to show that the petitioners had earlier been dealing with such articles. In this connection the counsel drew my attention to Manipur Administration v. Nila Chandra Singh : A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1533. Their Lordships in that case were dealing with Manipur Food -grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, Clause 3(2). The wordings of that clause and the one before me are similar except this that in that order the quantity mentioned was 100 maun is and in the one before me it is 50 quintals. While elucidating the provisions of that clause, the Supreme Court observed that "the statutory presumption raised by clause 3(2) is a rebuttable presumption and only amounts to this and nothing more that the stock found with a given individual of 100 or more Mounds of the specified food grains had been stored by him for the purpose of sale, Having reached this conclusion on the strength of presumption, the prosecution would still have to show that the store of the food -grains for the purpose of sale thus presumed was made by him for the purpose of carrying on the business of store of the said food -grains. The element of business which is essential to attract the provisions of clause 3(1) is thus not covered by the presumption raised under clause 3(2). That part of the case would still have to be proved by the prosecution by other independent evidence." The counsel, therefore, maintained that there were was not an iota of evidence on the record on the basis of which we could say that the petitioners were ever in possession of similar incriminating article before nor was there any evidence to show that they had ever dealt with or bad been dealing with similar stuff, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that by virtue of this clause -clause 3(3) -there is statutory presumption against the person from whom the incriminating food -grains were recovered unless he proves to the contrary. This point was lucidly discussed by the Supreme Court in the case mentioned above and I cannot add anything more.

(3.) THE petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioners acquitted.