JOWAHARMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by the accused Jawahar Mal against his conviction and sentence under sec. 7 of the Indian Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, (Act XXIV of 1946), for the breach of clause 4 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949. The petitioner was convicted as above by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment up to the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and a forfeiture order was also passed in respect of the 350 maunds of Bajra which was found in the petitioner's possession. The learned additional Sessions Judge, Churu, upheld the conviction and sentence in appeal. The present revision has been filed against that judgment.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution is short and simple. It is alleged that Jawaharmal was found to have in his possession at his two shops in Ratangarh 350 maunds of Bajra, and that he held no licence for the purpose. This was said to be in contravention of the provisions of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order which permits possession of grain falling within the purview of that Order up to 50 maunds without a licence. On 22nd October, 1951, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ratangarh, recovered the aforesaid quantity of grain from the petitioner's shops. THE petitioner admitted this recovery. His defence, however, was that he had obtained the Bajra on 19. 10. 1951, and that he had settled the sale of almost the whole quantity to a licensed dealer Sita Ram Purohit and further that he had sold 10 bags to retail dealers. He produced two receipts Ex. D-l and D-2 in lieu of the municipal tax paid by him in respect of the bags of Bajra in question and these receipts are dated 19th October, 1951. THE plea raised by the defence was that the accused was within his rights in storing the stock of Bajra under the provisions of cl. 17 (2) of the Foodgrains Control Order upto the period of a week from the date of such acquisition. This plea was rejected by both the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu.