STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. AMRA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by the State against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated 25 -2 -1980 whereby he has set aside the order of the Collector, Sirohi dated 18 -10 -1979 passed under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent was holder of a retail licence in kerosene. It is allegnd that this kerosene dealer used to charge more than the fixed price of kerosene. On 24 -8 -1979 when the Inspector inspected his shop he found that his opening stock was 220 litres and at the time of checking 54 litres has already been sold out and 166 litres kerosene was found to be available, But neither he displayed the price nor the stock at the shop. Therefore, he was found to have contravened condition No. 3 of the Rajasthan (Display of Prices and Stock of Essential Commodities) Order. 1977 (here in after referred to as 'the 1977 Order') as well as condition No. 10 of the Rajasthan Kerosene Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1971 (here in after called as the 1971 'Order'), there by committing an offence under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and liable to be prosecuted under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. A notice was issued to the respondent to show -cause why his stock cannot be seized under Section 6A of the Act. The accused respondent appeared before the Collector and took the plea that he has not committed any breach of the licence and it was further submitted that the price list was already on the folding side of doors on the shop and it was also written on the container of the kerosene as such any prospective buyer could know the price. It is further alleged that no record has been produced that he has charged more than the price fixed by the Sate. Therefore, he prayed that this seized stock may be released. The Collector did not accept the plea of the respondent and found him guilty under the 1977 and 1971 Orders read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act seized 165 litres of kerosene under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. Aggrieved against this the accused respondents Amra Ram preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Pali and and the learned Sessions Judge, Pali by his judgment dated 25 -2 -1980 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector, Sirohi on the ground that the accused has not been proved to have committed the breach of the orders and he had repeatedly requested that the original containers may be summoned as the rates have already been written over that. But those containers were not perused. Therefore, the accused cannot be held guilty. Secondly, the learned Sessions Judge has further found that the Inspector had no jurisdiction to inspect the shop of the accused respondent and in this connection the learned Sessions Judge relied upon the Government Notification No. S O 74 Published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary 4(Ga)(II) dated 22 -7 -1975 (pages 163 164) for coming to the conclusion that this notification does not empower the Inspector of that area to inspect the shop of she accused respondent Amra Ram kerosene dealer. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Collector, Sirohi for the aforesaid reasons by his judgment dated 25 -2 -1980. Aggrieved against this, the State preferred the present revision petition before this Court. The same was admitted and notice was given to the accused respondent Amra Ram. Inspite of service of notice Amra Ram has not appeared before this Court.

(3.) THE plea of respondent Amra Ram is that he has displayed the so -called price list and stock on the folding doors of the shop. This plea cannot serve the purpose. The idea is that the dealer has to display the price and the stock of the commodity at a conspicuous place at the shop so as to enable the consumers to know the rates. Simply by putting the so -called price list at the folding doors which is not visible that will not serve the purpose. The plea of the accused itself shows that the price list and the stock were not displayed on a conspicuous part of the shop so as to easily visible to the consumers. The respondent Amraram has also taken the plea that the rates were also mentioned on the containers of the kerosene and he wanted these containers to be produced in the court. This plea of respondent Amra Ram is also not tenable. The 1971 as well as the 1977 Orders clearly lay down that the dealers have to display the price list and stock on the shop so as to easily conspicuous. Simply by writing the rates on the container of the kerosene will not serve the purpose. He has to display the rates and the stock in a manner as required by the aforesaid two Orders and this superficial compliance cannot be said to be a sufficient compliance of the orders. Thus, the approach of the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to be correct.