BABOO LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Baboolal is a partner in the firm Ghasilal Baboolal, Purani Mandi, Hindaun. The firm carries on the business of foodgrains in Hindaun. The State promulgated the Rajasthan Foodgrains (Prevention of Hoarding) Order, 1973, (hereinafter called 'the Order') by its notification dated 12th February, 1973. Under clause 3 of the Order, restrictions were placed on dealers keeping in possession foodgrains more than those specified in the clause. Under clause 4, however, if a dealer had in his possession any quantity of foodgrains exceeding that which was permitted by clause 3, he had to submit a declaration in the form given in the second Schedule of the Order to the Tehsildar specifying the stock on the last date of the month 'within three days after the close of month". It is not disputed that the firm had on 28th February, 1973, 460 Q. 85 Kg. 500 Gms. of paddy and 69 Q. 28 Kg. 700 Gms. of rice in their stock. The declaration was to be submitted to the Tehsildar on the 3rd of March, 1973 but 3rd of March and 4th of March, 1973 were public holdidays being Shivratri and Sunday respectively. After the declaration was filed by the applicant on the 5th March, 1973 the Tehsildar made an inspection on the 6th of March, 1973 of the said firm and the goods were found in accordance with the declaration given by it. Notwithstanding this, the Tehsildar made a complaint that Baboolal partner of the firm had not filed his declaration by the 3rd of March, 1973 and, therefore, he was guilty under sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Baboolal when examined admitted his guilt and added that he did not want any trial. The learned Magistrate who tried the case, convicted him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- and further ordered the confiscation of the entire goods. Baboolal preferred a revision before the learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur, but without success. Still aggrieved, he is before me.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for Baboolal urged firstly that admission of the facts put to Baboolal by the Magistrate did not amount to a plea of guilt because according to the law, Baboolal could have submitted the return by the 5th of March, 1973 which he did, and the possession of foodgrains in excess of clause 3, if so declared, was not illegal. Baboolal thus committed no offence. Any plea of guilt in the mistaken belief in regard to the position of law is no admission of guilt at all and he placed reliance on Niranjanlal Arya vs. State (l ).