RAMESHWAR LALL ROSTOGI Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petnr. has been sentenced to three months' R. I. & to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 under Section 7, Essential Supplies Act, 1946. THE particular offence alleged to have been committed is the omission to sell rice to the holder E of a ration card who was entitled to buy it. Section 7 penalises the contravention of an order made under Section 3 of the Act. Under Section 3 the Central Govt. is empowered to make orders for, amongst other things, requiring any person holding stock of an essential commodity to sell the whole or a specified part of the stock at such prices & to such persons or class of persons or in such circumstances, as may be specified in the order. THE prosecution has not proved that the Central Govt. has made any order the contravention of which would be a breach of Clause (f) of Section 3 the purport of which I have quoted above. What they have brought on to the record is a letter addressed to the petnr's. firm by an officer in the Supply Dept. directing him to supply rice to the holders of ration-cards. That is not an order of the Central Govt. Under Section 4 of the Act, however, the Central Govt. is authorised to direct that the power which it has under Section 3 shall be exercised either by an officer or authority subordinate to the Central Govt. or by such Provincial Govt. or such officer or authority subordinate to a Provincial Govt. as may be specified in the direction. When the Central Govt. delegates this power to the Provincial Govt. it is to be done by a notified order, that is to say, by an order notified in the official Gazette. THEre is nothing on the record of this case to indicate that the Central Govt. has delegated its power either to an officer or to an authority subordinate to itself, or to the Provincial Govt. or to an officer or an authority subordinate to the Provincial Govt. THE prosecution, therefore, have failed to prove that the letter on which they rely is an order the contravention of which constitutes an offence under Section 7 of the Act. This of course is really one of those numerous cases to which I have been continually inviting the attention of the Provincial Govt. illustrating the utter neglect with which important prosecutions are conducted. No attempt is made to bring on to the record material which is necessary for determining whether the accused has committed an offence or not. THE conviction & sentence are set aside. THE fine, if paid, will be refunded.