STATE Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal, dated 10-1-1951, passed in appeal by Mr. S. B. Sengupta, Sessions Judge, Furulia. The trial Court had convicted the respondent Amrit Lal Seth under Section 7 read with Section 17, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, read with Clause 3 of the Bihar Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He had further directed that the mill-made cloth seized from the shop of the respondent by the Supply Inspector be forfeited to the Provincial Government under Clause 11 of the Bihar Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1948.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 4-8-1949, one C. U. V. Krishnamurti, an assistant in the purchasing department, Sutur, had purchased 2 1/2 yards of 'chintz' for Rs. 2/13/- at the rate of Rs. 1/2/- per yard against the mill rate of Rs. 0/7/9 per yard from a shop bearing No. 23 in Sukchi market where the respondent was a sales- man. He reported this fact to the District Supply Officer in writing. That report is Ext. 12 on the record. Then on the order of the District Supply Officer a test purchase was arranged on 5-8-1949. On that day again C. U. V. Krishnamurti purchased 1 1/4 yards of the same 'chintz' though of different colour, at the same rate of Rs. 1/2/- per yard for a total sum of Rs. 1/6/6. On demand for a cash memo a 'chit' in the writing of the respondent, which is Ext. 2, was given to the purchaser. By the time this sale was completed the Supply Inspector along with the other officers also appeared on the scene and verified the factum of the sale of the cloth at the rate stated above. This time as well a report was given in writing to the District Supply Officer by the said purchaser regarding the purchase made by him. The shop was thereon searched and a seizure list prepared, in answer to the questions put to him by the District Supply Officer, the respondent gave statements in his own handwriting which is Ext. 3 on the record. A demand was also made from him then and there by those officers for the production of the cloth licence, stock register, cash memo, counter-foils and other papers, which the respondent failed to produce. On these allegations the respondent was prosecuted for contravening the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bihar cotton Cloth and Yard (Control) Order, 1948 and also for contravening the provisions of Clause 24 (1) of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948.

(3.) At the trial the following charges with two heads had been originally framed against the respondent :