HIRA SAH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner 1 is the father of petitioner 2. They have been convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, for having contravened Clause 5 of a license Form A, Bihar Coal, Sugar and Kerosene Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1942. Petitioner 1 has been sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and petitioner 2 has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 60, in default two weeks rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The offence was brought to light in the following circumstances: On 5-5-1945, one Jagdish Ram (P.W. 3) went to the shop of the petitioners and purchased four seers of sugar from petitioner 1 who charged Rs. 4-8-0 as the price. On protest of Jagdish Ram to the effect that the controlled rate was 0-7-6 per seer, the accused did not pay any attention to the same. On being questioned to furnish a receipt, he refused to do so. Thereupon, the said Jagdish Ram went to the police-station in company of a chaukidar and lodged an information. Both the Courts below have found as a fact that the occurrence is true.

(3.) Petitioner 1 was a licensee. His license was cancelled presumably on account of some misconduct in connection with transactions under the license. Two or three months after curiously enough, a license was granted to petitioner 2, his son, who is a school-boy of hardly eleven years of age. It has been found as a fact that at the time of this occurrence, as at all other material times when the business of the shop has to be transacted, the boy attends the school and whole affairs of the shop are conducted by petitioner 1, the father. It is beyond any possibility of doubt that the son is merely a farzidar in the matter of license of the father who on account of his misconduct lost the previous license and got one in the name of his son. Both the petitioners were charged on two counts, namely, for having charged a price more than the controlled rate for sugar and for contravening one of the conditions of the license which is laid down in para. 5 thereof. They were acquitted of the charge on the first count on the ground that Rule 119, Defence of India Rules, had not been complied with as the authority fixing the controlled rate did not prescribe the manner of publication of the notice in the same order as required under, the rule. In view of the findings of fact, however, they were both convicted on the second count, namely for contravention of one of the conditions of the license. Paragraph 5 of the license reads as follows: The licensee shall issue to every customer a correct receipt and/or invoice as the case may be, giving his own name, address and license number, the date of transaction, the quantity sold, the price charged and shall keep a duplicate of the same available for inspection on demand by officer of Government authorised under Clause 6, Bihar Coal, Sugar and Kerosene Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1942.