M S SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER no. 1 is the Executive President, and Petitioner no. 2 is Executive Vice President of New Swadeshi Sugar Mills, Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Narkatiaganj in the district of West Cham-paran.

(2.) BY Memo No. 170 dated 19.1.1993 Excise Superintendent, Narkatiaganj, West Champaran filed written complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah alleging that the petitioners had wasted 162 quintals of molasses, thereby State suffered loss of excise duty of Rs. 1, 46, 160/ -. This fact had been noticed in the report of the Accountant General of the Year 1991 -92. The management was therefore liable to pay tire loss of revenue which was caused due to wastage of molasses. It was further alleged that it was the duty of the management of the Sugar Mills to store molasses in safe position under the supervision of Controller of ' Molasses. It is alleged that the Excise Superintendent, Bettiah, West Champaran had also issued notice dated 29.4.1992 and instructed the management of the factory to deposit Rs. 1,46,160/ - in the Government treasury for loss of 162.40 quintals of molasses but the management of the factory did not take any action. That is why, complaint was filed for punishing the petitioners under Section 10 of Molasses Control Act, 1947. Audit report has been appended to the complaint to show that under Bihar Molasses (Control) Act, 1947 and rules framed thereunder, there is no provision in the sugar factories as well as distilleries of wastage of molasses. The management informed the District Excise Officer in course of storage of molasses and the wastage was due to foaming and frothing etc. Rule 8 of Bihar Molasses (Control) Rules, 1955 also provides necessary safeguard against any leakage and any other accident likely to affect the molasses stored in the tank.

(3.) RULE 8 of the Bihar Molasses (Control) Rules, 1955 reads as follows : ''Every owner, occupier or Manager of a sugar factory shall keep covered storage tank for the safe storage of the entire quantity of molasses to be produced. They shall provide necessary safeguards against leakage, or any other accident likely to affect the quality of molasses stored in the tank. '' There is no allegation in the complaint petition that the owner, occupier or the Manager of the sugar factory has not kept the covered storage tank for the safe storage of the molasses. Section 10 of the Molasses (Control) Act provides that if any person contravenes any provision of, or fails to comply with any order or direction issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. Loss of molasses or negligence otherwise is not an offence under the Act and as such the complaint petition is not maintanable. It is highlighted that the State Revenue suffered loss. There is no allegation that the factory had not taken adequate safeguards as required under the Act or the Rules for storage of molasses.