BALA BUX Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications have been heard together. The petitioners have been convicted under various provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Sugar Cane Rules, 1934. Petitioner Bala Bux, as the purchasing agent of a sugar concern, has been convicted under Rules 15(d), 15 (e) and 15(f). Under Rule 15(d) he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150 in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Under Rules 15(e) and 15(f) he has been sentenced on each of the two counts to pay a fine of Rs. 75, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The other petitioner, Ramswarath Ram, who happened to be the weighment-clerk under Bala Bux, the purchasing agent, has been convicted of offences under Rules 15(e) and 15(f) and on each of the two counts has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 37-8-0, in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) The incident which led to the prosecution, as stated in the judgment of the trial Court, is briefly this: It appears that the petitioner Bala Bux was a purchasing agent for the Guraru Sugar Mill in Gaya and at their way-bridge at Jamooana railway station petitioner Ramswarath Ram worked as a weighment-clerk under Bala Bux. On 27 April 1937, the sugarcane inspector paid a surprise visit to the way-bridge at 9 A.M. He called upon one of the loaded carts, which was covered by receipt No. 52260, to be reweighed and found that while according to the receipt there were only 23 maunds 20 seers of cane in it, in fact it had a load of 24 maunds 30 seers; and he also noticed that the Carbon-duplicate of the receipt showed that the cart contained 24 maunds of cane. The inspector immediately examined the weighment-clerk Ramswarath Ram and had his statement recorded. Later on he sent a report to the District Magistrate of Gaya. That report was dealt with by the District Magistrate on 10 May 1937 when he sanctioned the prosecution of the present petitioners. The two persons were accordingly tried and convicted as already stated.

(3.) Mr. Rajkishore Prasad, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues that Rule 15(d) of the Rules relates to an infringement of Rule 11, and in the present instance for failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 11, Bala Bux the purchasing agent should not have been made liable. Rule 11 provides that the manager or purchasing agent, as the case may be, shall cause to be maintained and any person made responsible by the manager or purchasing agent in this behalf shall duly maintain clear and accurate records of all purchases made on his behalf: and the rule further lays down the particulars in regard to which such records are to be maintained. Under Clause (3) of the rule such records shall be available for inspection to an inspector whenever required by him.