GIARSILAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has bean sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of fourteen days, by the Munsif-Magistrate exercising summary power, Jamahedpur. The prosecution case is that on the 15th October, 1964, P. W. 2 Earn Chandra Earn, who is a Supply Inspector at Jamshedpur, visited a foodgrain shop, of which the licence stands in the name of the petitioner's-father, Baldeo Maharaj, along with a Magistrate (P. W. 1), Sii B. P. Jha. He found that the present petitioner was running the shop in question, and on examining the registers it was found that neither the closing balance of the 14th October, 1964 nor the opening balance of the 15th October, 1964 had been entered into the stock book and account books. He further found ten bags of besan in the shop in excess of the stock as entered in the stock register. Thereafter, the prosecution report was filed by the Inspector and cognizance was taken on the basis thereof.

(2.) The defence of the petitioner was that the. began in question was not of gram, and, as such no offence was committed so far as the aforesaid ten bags of besan were concerned. His case further was that as the licence for the shop stood in the name of his father, he could not be prosecuted for the alleged offence. The Magistrate held that the ton bags of besan were gram besan, and, as such, the provisions of the Bihar Foodgraina Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963 were applicable to the same also. He further accepted the prosecution case about the failure to make entries in respect of the closing balance of the 14th October, 1964 and the opening balance of the 15th October, 1964 in the stock and other registers. The contention of non-liability of the petitioner for the offences in question on account of the licence being in the name of his father was rejected on the finding that the petitioner was acting in the shop on behalf of his father. On the aforesaid findings, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. The petitioner thereafter moved the Sessions Judge against this order, but his petition was rejected as per order passed by the Sessions Judge dated the 27th March, 1965, and, thereafter, the present petition in revision has been filed.

(3.) The fact that the Supply. Inspector (P. W. a) and the Magistrate (P. W. 1) had visited the chop in question on the lath of October, 1964 and that at that time there was no entry in the stock and other registers with respect to the closing balance of the 14th October, 1961 and the opening balance of the 15th October, 1964 was not disputed before me, and the further-fact that these officers found ten bags of began in excess of the entries made in the stock register is also not disputed. It was, however, contended that these ten bags of besan were not of gram but were of peas, and, as such, these do not come within the purview of the Bihar Food-grains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963. Although in the complaint petition filed by the Supply Inspector, the article in question is described as besan, this witness has stated in his evidence in court that the besan was of gram. His evidence further shows that these ten bags of besan were seized and sealed by him and thereafter made over to the present petitioner himself for custody. In these circumstances, there does not appear to be any cogent reason for disbelieving his evidence that the besan in question was gram besan. Had it not been so, the petitioner, could have easily confronted the witness (P. W 2) by showing that it was not gram besan by production of any of the bags which were in the custody of the petitioner himself. The contention that the began in question was not the gram besan and as such the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1933, were not applicable with respect to these bags of besan is thus quite untenable. It was next contended that as the complaint petition did not disclose that the besan was gram besan, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the case so far as it related to the ten bags of began as under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1956, a Court cannot take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a public servant. It is no doubt true that the besan in question was not described in the complaint petition as gram been but, as pointed out by the learned Magistrate, in common parlance, the word 'besan' denotes gram besan and not the besan of peas or of any other grain. Hence, the use of the word 'besan' in the complaint petition implied that it was gram besan, and, as such the contention that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the case with respect to the ten bags of besan, as they were not specifically described as gram besan in the complaint petition, is quite untenable.