SHYAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shyam sunder petitioner and Girdhari Lal (since acquitted by the trial court) were tried by the learned Magistrate for having committed the offences under clauses 4 and 15 o f the Rajasthan Wheat (Regulation of Trade) order 1973 (since repealed vide GSR 46 dated 27.8.80 ad hereinafter referred to as the order 1973) issued under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short Act of 1955). The case against them was that on 30.9.77 when P.W. 1 Shabbir Husain, P.W. 4 Surendra Singh, Enforcement Inspector of the Supply Department, Jhunjhunu, inspected the business premises of M/s Girdhari Lal Sanjay Kumar at Nuaan, which is stated to be the sole proprietorship concern of Girdhari Lal co-accused, the petitioner was found selling wheat. On inspection of the business premises 70 Quintals (bags) of wheat were found stored in the godown of the shop. The petitioner was having no licence for dealing in wheat. On trial, the learned Magistrate held that Girdhari Lal co-accused was not there at the shop at the relevant time and that the wheat had also not been stored by the petitioner for sale yet. since he was found in possession of wheat exceeding in quantity which was permitted to be held in possession as per provisions of order 1973, he was guilty of violating clause 15 of the order 1973. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 3/7 of the Act of 1955 and sentenced him to suffer RI for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. By his judgment and order dated 23.10.92, which is under challenge, the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. Hence the petition under Sec. 397/401 CrPC.

(2.) It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kala that Girdhari Lal co-accused, since acquitted, was sole proprietor of the business being done in the name of M/s Girdhari Lal Sanjay Kumar and that the petitioner was simply a visitor to the shop. The learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner was neither the owner of the business nor a partner therein he was not liable to be convicted for any offence under Sec. 3/7 of the Act of 1955 particularly, when the sole proprietor of the business was acquitted by the learned trial court. The learned Public Prosecutor however, pointed out that at the time of inspection of the business premises by the officers of the supply department the petitioner was incharge of the business and responsible to the proprietor of the business for the business being transacted in the absence of the proprietor. The learned Public Prosecutor in this behalf referred to the provisions contained in Sec. 10 of the act 1955.

(3.) In so far as the finding of the learned courts regarding the petitioner being incharge of the business of M/s Girdhari Lal and Sanjay Kumar at the time of inspection by the Officers of the Supply Department is concerned, the same finds ample support from the statements of P.W. 1 Shri Shabbir Husain P.W. 4 Surendra Singh Enforcement Inspectors.