SAKALDEO SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a licensed purchasing agent for a sugar-cane factory and has been prosecuted for an offence against the new rules framed by the local Government under the Sugar-cane Act, 1934. The finding of the lower appellate Court expressed in the concluding portion of his judgment is that the appellant purchased sugar-cane both on 19 March 1936 and 20 March 1936 without proper weighment, thereby contravening Rules 13 and 11 of the Sugar-cane Rules. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly held that he had rightly been convicted under Rule 15. Now Rule 11 deals with the maintenance of clear and accurate records of all purchases and these records are to show among other particulars the weight of the sugar-cane including the weight of the cart, the weight of the cart itself and the net weight of the sugar-cane purchased. This rule is obviously framed by some one who supposed as a matter of course that weighment would be made on a mechanical weigh-bridge. In fact unless weighment is made in that manner, it is difficult to see how any clear and accurate record of those particulars can possibly be made. Rule 13 requires the manager or purchasing agent to comply with conditions among which are these: that all dealings and contracts of purchase are to be made and had according to the standard maund and weighments shall be made to the nearest quarter maund and the scales or weights used must permit of the easy reading of the recorded weight.

(2.) It was first contended for the petitioner that the rules nowhere provided that weighment must be made on a mechanical weigh-bridge. I think that R.13 contains requirements which a mechanical weighbridge satisfies and that no other method of weighing has been suggested which would equally satisfy those requirements. Rule 13 is therefore broken unless weighment is made either by a weigh-bridge or by some other method which equally satisfies the requirements of the Rule and no other practicable method has in fact been suggested nor has any other practicable method been suggested of fulfilling the requirements of Rule 11, I am of opinion that the accused on the facts found by the learned Sessions Judge did not obey Rules 11 and 13. It has however, been contended that the proceedings are defective, because under Rule 20 no prosecution is to be instituted under these Rules except by order of or under authority from the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate did in fact direct the prosecution of the petitioner in the following terms: "Prosecute the two men under Rule 15 for infringement of Cane Rules 9-11." The Sessions Judge has found that the petitioner committed a breach of Rule 13, and it is said that a breach of this Rule was not within the cognizance of the Court before which a prosecution was instituted for breach of Rules 9-11. I do not find much substance in this argument. It has been held in several cases that when a prosecution has been instituted of a kind requiring the previous complaint, sanction or order of a particular authority, then once the proceedings are on foot they will take their course in respect of any offence which the facts disclose. There is ample authority for this. It is sufficient at present to refer to Jamuna Singh V/s. Laldhari Singh AIR 1934. Pat 536 once the bar to the Court taking cognizance of the case is removed, then if it appears that some other offence also has been committed, it is not necessary to have a fresh complaint.

(3.) Another point taken is that if the meaning of the Rules is as understood by the Courts below and the Rules make it obligatory on the purchasing agent to buy in a particular manner by weight, then the Rules go beyond the scope of the Act and are ultra vires, For this contention reference is made to the provisions of the Act itself and the, powers conferred on the Local Government, by it. Section 3(2) empowers the Local Government to fix a minimum price for the purchase of sugar- cane in a controlled area and Section 3(3) authorises the Local Government to prohibit in controlled area the purchase of sugar-cane for a factory ... otherwise than from the grower or a licensed purchasing agent. Then there is power in Section 7 to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects of the Act and in particular to provide for (c) the issue of licenses to purchasing agents, the fees for such licenses , and the regulation of the purchase and sale of sugar- cane by and to such agents; (f) the records, registers and accounts to be maintained for ensuring compliance with the provisions of this Act. Sub-clause (3) authorises the Local Government to provide that a breach of Sub-clause (2)(c) or (f) maybe punished with fine not exceeding two thousand rupees. The power to make rules for the regulation of the purchase and sale of sugar-cane by and to licensed purchasing agents, seems to me to be a very wide power indeed; and I have no doubt at all that Rules 11 and 13 are within the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Act.