MAHAVIR PRASAD Vs. PANCHAYAT SRI DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramesh Chand petitioner was convicted by the CJM Sawaimadhopur, by his judgment dated April 10, '80, for contravention of clause (4) of the Rajasthan Wheat (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 for carrying on business as a dealer in wheat in quantity exceeding one quintal on any day, without] obtaining a licence u/s. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. Along with the petitioner, Mahesh Chand was also convicted and sentenced. Both of them filed Criminal Appeal No. 47/80 before the Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur. The Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur by his judgement dated July 6, '85, allowed the appeal of Mahesh Chand on the ground that it was not established by the prosecution that Mahesh Chand had anything to do with the firm. M/s Mahesh Chand Ashok Kumar However the conviction and sentence awarded by the C. J. M. Sawaimadhopur to the petitioner, were upheld. The petitioner has come in revision to this Court.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on Dec. 30, '75, Mohanlal Barua Enforcement Inspector, Sawaimadhopur, inspected the precincts of firm M/s Mahesh Chand Ashok Kumar, situated in Badria, Bazar, Sawaimadhopur Railway Station. It was found that Ramesh Chand petitioner was present in the shop when the shop was inspected. Seven bags of wheat weighing 7 quintals was found in the shop apart from 'gwar' and 'jwar' weighing 50 Kgs and 20 Kgs. respectively. It was found that no licence had been obtained for carrying on business in wheat. THE wheat bags were accordingly seized by the Enforcement Inspector and were handed over on a 'supardginama'. On Dec. 4 '76, another Enforcement Inspector, Ram Gopal Purohit filed a written complaint against Mahesh Chand and Ramesh Chand, alleging contravention of clause 4 of the above-mentioned Order. It was alleged in Para-2 of the complaint that at the time of inspection of the shop, Ramesh Chand petitioner, partner of the firm M/s Mahesh Chand Ashok Kumar, was present and that this firm dealt in retail sale of food grains, and that it did not have any licence.

(3.) In the present case, there is not an iota of evidence adduced that M/s Mahesh Chand Ashok Kumar was a partnership firm or that Mahesh Chand and Ramesh Chand were its partners. Thus, it is not established that contravention of the Order was made by a partnership firm which is included in the definition of "company" as given in S. 10 of the Act, for the purposes of that section. When the complainant failed to establish that there was any contravention by a partnership firm, and when it is neither alleged nor established that Ramesh Chand petitioner was a partner of the firm and was overall-in-charge and responsible to the firm, no conviction can be made in relation to him for contravention of clause (4) of the said Order.