STATE OF BIHAR Vs. GANAURI SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge of Manbhum, dated 19th August 1950. The respondent had been tried and convicted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for having contravened Clause 3 (a), Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1948. The trial was held before a Magistrate of Dhanbad who recorded an order of conviction on 15th July 1950. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge accepted the argument which had been advanced before him that the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, were not in force in Chota Nagpur on the date of the offence said to have been committed by the respondent in this case, namely, on 16th January, 1950. It was because of this view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate, and acquitted the respondent. As against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, as just now stated, the State has filed this appeal on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in holding that the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 were not in force in Chota Nagpur on 16th January 1950.

(2.) Mr. Baldeva Sahay, who has appeared for the respondent, has conceded that, by reason of certain later decisions of Division Benches of this Court, it must now be held that the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 was in force in Chota Nagpur on 16th Janu-ary 1950, and he stated that he would no longer press that point. He has, however, argued the case on its merits, and has contended that the respondent ought, not to be found to have committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

(3.) Now the facts are shortly these. The respondent is a retail shopkeeper dealing in sundry articles. One Mr. B. N. Singh Chaudhury a Supply Inspector of Jharia, who was examined as witness No. 2 for the prosecution, deposed that he had received information that the respondent had purchased 62 maunds of rice from Messrs Bholaram Shiblal of Chirkunda, and he conveyed this information to the Supply Inspector of Dhanbad who was examined as witness No. 1 for the prosecution. In consequence, both these Supply Inspectors visited the shop of the respondent on 4th February 1950, in Dhanbad Bazar. They met the respondent, and enquired from him about the said transaction. The evidence of both those witnesses is that the respondent admitted to have made a purchase of 62 maunds of rice from Messrs Bhola-ram Shiblal of Chirkunda, and, in support of that, he produced a cash memo (Ex. 1). This cash memo purports to have been granted to the respondent on 16th January 1950, and all that it says is that 31 bags of rice, weighing 62 maunds, had been sold by Messrs Bholaram Shiblal Agarwala to the respondent. Later on, that is, on 20th February 1950, the Supply Inspector of Dhanbad filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-divisional Officer of Dhanbad stating, the circumstances referred to above and praying for the prosecution of the respondent under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 for having violated the provisions of Clause 3(a), Bihar Foodgrains Control Order of 1948.