AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the provisions of the Punjab Milk Products Control Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Control Order") are a temporary statutory measure and for that reason the trial and the resultant conviction of the Appellants in the two criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 212 -SB of 1985, Amarjit Singh v/s. State of Punjab and Criminal Appeal No. 206 -SB of 1985, Surjeet Singh v/s. State of Punjab) under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for violation of the provisions of the Control order is illegal and invalid, are the two related questions raised in these appeals and these have been referred by the learned Single Judge for decision by a larger Bench because he noticed a cleavage in the judicial opinion as articulated in Suresh Kumar v/s. State of Haryana, 1987 P.L.R. 104 and Ishar Dass and Anr. v/s. The State Crl. Rev. 677 of 1977 decided on May 9, 1980. A broad brush factual backdrop would help delineate contours of the forensic controversy.

(2.) On 18th June, 1983, Atma Singh, Dairy Extension Officer, Nabha, visited Patiala to check up whether the provisions of the Control Order were complied with. He directed Hardev Singh, driver of his jeep, to go to the premises of New Chawla Diary situated in Anardana Chowk, and to find out if cream was being sold there. Hardev Singh returned and informed Atma Singh that cream was on sale. On this, Atma Singh along with Hardev Singh raided the aforesaid dairy and found Amarjit Singh present there. A bucket containing cream was lying there. On enquiry made by Atma Singh, Amarjit Singh told him that the bucket contained curd. Since Atma Singh had a strong suspicion that the contents of the bucket were cream and not curd, he took three samples of 250 grams each from the bucket and sealed them and got the signatures of the accused on each of the sample. The sample bottles were sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, for his opinion. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst that the sample contained cream. Atma Singh lodged a complaint with the police on 10th November, 1983. A case was registered under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The accused Appellant was challaned. He was tried by the learned Special Judge. The prosecution examined Hargobind Singh (PW 1), Public Analyst, Punjabi, Chandigarh, who deposed that the sample analysed by him was cream. Atma Singh appeared as P.W. 5 and has supported the above mentioned story. He was corroborated by Hardev Singh (P.W. 6). Raghbir Singh (P.W. 2), Atma Ram (P.W. 3) and Gurlal Singh (P.W. 4) are the police officers who had investigated the case. Their evidence is of formal nature and need not be recounted. Appellant Amarjit Singh in his statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he had no connection whatsoever with New Chawla Dairy, Patiala and he is doing business of bakery in his own premises at some distance from this dairy. Learned Special Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, convicted him under Sec. 7 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two months. Aggrieved, he filed the present appeal.

(3.) At the threshold, we may read the relevant provisions of the Control Order.