STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NATHUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN merchantile system of accountancy, it is absolutely necessary to make physical verification of the stock in possession at the beginning of the accounting year as well as its close. This necessity arises on account of the fact that without taking into account the stock in possession at the beginning and the end of the accounting year, it is not at all possible to work out annual profits or losses earned or suffered by a trader. This system also prevents evasion of various taxations like, INcome Tax and Sales Tax. Apart from that, important economic legislation like, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the object of which is to regulate the supply and distribution of essential commodities, the stock possession assumes its importance in order to prevent black marketing and ensuring efficient working of public distribution system. For that, from time to time various orders have been issued by the State Government including the Rajasthan Gur Khandsari & Gur Dealer Licencing Order 1972. One of the essential requirements of such orders is that a trader dealing in Gur and Khandsari should exhibit the stock position as well as the price rate on a Notice Board at a conspicuous part of its business premise. The object behind such provision is that a customer should know about the availability of such essential commodity with the dealer and the price prevalent in the market. Any contravention of such provision leads to black marketing and development of parallel economy which is not conducive to the public good and welfare. IN this background, the case of the present nature has to be looked into.

(2.) NATHUMAL S/o Jhamatmal Singhi carried on business under the style of M/s NATHUMAL Jhamatmal at Gangori Bazar, Jaipur. On July 6, 1976, Satveer Singh Enforcement Inspector, Jaipur alongwith Keshav Chand Sharma and Chandra Shekhar Mishra inspected the business precincts of the above named firm. It found that the respondent did not possess any licence required to be held by a dealer of Gur and Khandsari having transactions in or holding Gur in more than the prescribed quantity. It was found that although the price of Gur had been exhibited but the stock position was not exhibited. On a physical verification it was found that the said firm had 108 Kgs Gur. available for the sale but the respondent did not hold a licence in dealing with this commodity. Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed against the respondent for contravention of the provision contained in Rajasthan Gur and Khandsari Dealers Licencing Order, 1972 which was punishable under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This criminal complaint was filed on August 28, 1976. The case was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur who, by judgment dated July 1, 1980, held the respondent guilty for the offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and convicted him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs. 700/ -. In default of payment of fine respondent was further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The respondent filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 24/1981 before the Court of Sessions Judge. That appeal was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 by his judgment dated June 2, 1981. The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the appeal filed by the respondent, set-aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and acquitted the respondent for the charge framed against him. The Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the prosecution had failed to establish that the Gur in the business premises of NATHUMAL was more than the limit of 50 quintals prescribed which necessitated the holding of a licence.