JAHOOR KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON October 26, 1967, Satyanarain, Enforcement Inspector, Jodhpur, made a complaint against Jahoor Khan, Proprietor of the firm Ratan Khan Jahoor Khan, Sardar Market, Jodhpur, under Sc. 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The allegations in the complaint were that Jahoor Khan despatched 94 bags of Moth-Mogar outside Rajasthan as per R. Ps. Nos. 525012 dated 22-8 67, 528023 dated 24-8-67, 525014 dated 24-8-67, 526016 dated 268-67 and 535017 dated 28-8-1967. The accused wrongly represented to the railway authorities that the bags contained Mung-Mogar and not Moth-Mogar. Since the accused committed a breach of the provisions of clause 4 of the Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stocks and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1965, (hereinafter called the Order) he was liable to be punished under Ss. 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955. ON receipt of the complaint, City Magistrate, Jodhpur, ordered the registration of the case and issued a bailable warrant on October 26, 1967, for the presence of the accused. An objection was taken on behalf of the accused that as the exported Moth-Mogar was not a prohibited commodity by the said Order, the complaint should be dismissed. The City Magistrate heard arguments on behalf of both the parties and then by his order, dated March 20, 1968, discharged the accused, holding that Moth-Mogar was not covered by the Schedule, appended to the Order. A revision-application was taken by the State in the court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The revisional Court held that Moth-Mogar was included in the Moth, mentioned in the Schedule, appended to the Order. ON this finding the revision-application was accepted and the order of discharge passed by the City Magistrate was set aside and the case was remanded to the City Magis--trate, Jodhpur, (for further inquiry. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner) Jahoor Khan filed this revision application in this Court.

(2.) CONTENTION of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the interpretation made of the word Moth, occurring in the Schedule, appended to the Order, is erroneous. Had the Legislature intended to include Moth Mogar in the Schedule, it would have explicitly specified it. Since that has not been done, the accused is not liable for the violation of clause 4 of the Order. Learned counsel for the State Government has tacitly supported the submission made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner.