SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, ON BEHALF OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT Vs. ABINASH CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of legal affairs, Bengal, against an order of acquittal passed by Mr. B.G. Kanjilal, Magistrate, 1 Class, Ranaghat, on 31-7-1943, in respect of a prosecution under Section 81(4), Defence of India Rules. The case for the prosecution was to the effect that on 22-5-1943, the sub-divisional officer of Ranaghat went to the shop of Abinash Chandra Roy, and found there 221 bags of paddy which had not been entered in the stock register prescribed under the Food Grains Control Order, dated 21- 5-1942. The case for the defence was to the effect that these bags of paddy belonged not to Abinash Chandra Roy but to a man named Mohiuddin who had deposited them in the godown of Abinash Chandra Roy in order that they might be stored and sold by Mohiuddin himself when the occasion arose. The accused contended that in these circumstances, it was not necessary for him to make any entry in the register prescribed under the Food Grains Control Order, and that his conduct with reference to this matter was entirely bona fide. In the first place, it has been urged by Mr. Basu on behalf of Abinash Chandra Roy that having regard to Clause 3 of the Control Order, it was not at all necessary to make any entry-regarding these bags of paddy in the stock register because they had not been stored for sale. The relevant words of Clause 8 are as follows: No person shall engage in any undertaking which involves the purchase, sale or storage for sale in wholesale quantities of any food grain except under and in accordance with a license....

(2.) Mr. Basu contends that the words "storage for sale" mean storage, for sale by the person who actually stores the grain. We are not prepared to accept this contention, specially having regard to the terms of amendment, dated 18-3-1943, which are as follows: Storage for sale in wholesale quantities means storage in quantities exceeding 20 maunds for purposes of sale, whether wholesale or retail and includes storage by any person on behalf of another as a commission agent or an arahtiya....

(3.) According to the evidence in this case, there is no doubt that the respondent was acting as an arahtiya on behalf of Mohiuddin and he bail entered into an undertaking with Mohiuddin, which involved storage for sale of rice in the godown belonging to Abinash Chandra Roy. The next point which is to be considered is whether or not the nee stored by Abinash in this way should have been entered in the stock book which a licensee is required to maintain under the Food Grains Control Order read with the license form Schedule 2 issued thereunder. The main items which have to be shown in such a stock-book are : (a) the opening stock on each day (b) the quantities of grain received each day showing the place of origin; (c) the quantities delivered or otherwise removed on each day showing the places of destination if consigned to places outside the district; and (d) the closing stock on ,each day. Admittedly, no entry relating to the bags of paddy with which we are now concerned had been made in the stock book, and in our view, it was not sufficient merely for the licensee to make an entry with regard to this stock in his jahda book. At the same time, it appears from the circumstances of the case that Abinash Chandra Roy was merely guilty of having made a bona fide mistake and he certainly made no attempt to conceal what he had done. His conduct does not appear to have been, in any way, dishonourable, and we, therefore, find him technically guilty of an offence under Section 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and sentence him to pay a fine, Re. 1. Roxburgh, J. I agree.