PURANMAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted under Rule 81, Clause (4), Defence of India Rules, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. According to the prosecution, the petitioner sold salt and kerosene oil beyond the controlled rate. He has been acquitted of the charge for selling salt beyond the controlled rate, but has been convicted for selling kerosene oil beyond the controlled rate. It is said that he sold oil at five annas per bottle of 22 oz. against the controlled rate of three annas.

(2.) The learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that the order of the Sub- divisional Magistrate fixing the price beyond which such oil was not to be sold has neither been produced nor exhibited in the case. The prosecution depended upon a so-called price list and the oral testimony of the Assistant Price Control Officer.

(3.) The learned advocate, therefore, suggests that there is no legal evidence on the record to prove the price fixed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate and he relies upon two decisions of this Court in Jagarnath V/s. Emperor A.I.R (45) Pat. 307 and Ram Prasad V/s. Emperor A.I.R. 1945 Pat. 210. He has not raised the question as to whether the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate had been published in a manner prescribed by him, as he argued that the order itself had not been produced. We are of the opinion that there is a lacuna in the prosecution evidence, for the evidence of the Assistant Price Control Officer and the price list cannot take the place of the order of the Sub-divisional officer fixing the price, and it is this order which it is alleged by the prosecution to have been contravened.