KEDAR NATH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is against an order passed by Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Sessions Judge of Saran, upholding the order of Mr. Shree Krishna Prasad, Munsif Magis-'" trate, Chapra, convicting the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies Act, 1946 for having no proper account of the cloths in his stock and thereby contravening the conditions of the licence issued to him under the Bihar Cotton. Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1948. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month more.

(2.) The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that the petitioner held licence for dealing in cloths and had his shop in the town of Chapra. On 4-10-1950 in the afternoon, Mr. S.K. Ghatak, a Magistrate, along with Akhouri Himachal Prasad Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, checked the stock in the petitioner's shop and verified the same with reference to the Stock Register. On checking, twenty-five pairs of saris were found to be in excess in the shop of the petitioner and were not found entered in the Stock Register. The defence of the petitioner has been that the said twenty-five pairs of saris were purchased by the Munib of the petitioner that very day from the firm of Tansuk Rai Baijnath, but no sooner than the Munib had brought the saris from the said firm, he received news of the sudden illness of his son and so he left the petitioner's shop without entering the twenty-five pairs of saris in the Stock Register. The cash memo, in respect of the said sari was also with the petitioner's Munib and as such it could not be produced at the time of the checking. His case further has been that V there could be no contravention of the conditions of the licence for mere non-entry in the Stock Register of the stock received soon after its receipt until the entries for the day had closed. And, in fact, the entries could not be closed till the close of the business for the day. So if the twenty-five pairs of saris purchased on that very day from the firm of Tansukh Rai Baijnath had not been entered in the Stock Register till the afternoon on that day, when the checking was made, it did not in law, constitute any contravention of the terms of the licence. The petitioner, in support of his defence, has examined his own Munib iis also the Munib of the firm of Tansukh Rai Baijnath and has produced the cash memo issued to the petitioner and its counterpart retained in the firm of Tansukh Rai Baijnath. The charge framed, against the petitioner at the trial was as follows:

(3.) Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has raised the following points. Firstly, that the prosecution having failed to prove that the balance struck on the previous day was wrong, and that the excess of twenty-five pairs of saris found in the shop was in stock from sometime before the day of checking, the defence set up by the petitioner should have been accepted, as there is nothing impossible in it, and more so for the reason that the best evidence that could have been secured by the petitioner in support of his defence had been placed before the Court. Secondly, that the terms cf licence issued to the petitioner do not contemplate that every purchase of a new stock, brought to the shop should be entered in the Stock Register the moment it is received there. Under the terms, the new stock can be entered and should be entered in the Stock Register till the time of the close of the business when the Stock Register is generally written and the balance is struck.