BALCHAND TIKARAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants were convicted under Rule 81(i), Defence of India Rules for contravention of the Provincial Government's Order relating to oil-cakes. The facts are that the applicants (who are all brothers) are proprietors of Hira Oil Mills, Saugor, and in contravention of the order, of the Provincial Government did not submit a true return of their stocks of oilcakes in the three months which are the subject of this prosecution. Their sentences were varied on appeal and as they stand to-day they are: Applioant 1--Rs. 2000 for each of the three offences. Total Rs. 6,000. Applicants 2 & 3 -- Rs. 300 for each of the three offences. Total fine Rs. 900 each.

(2.) VARIOUS grounds were urged in the petition for revision but now the main argument is the applicability of the order to the applicants. It is contended that the order applies only to 'dealers' and the applicants are not dealers because the applicants press out oils and the oilcakes are merely a by product. In this sense the applicants contend they are 'producers' rather than dealers. Since the clause contravened applies to dealers, it is urged, no offence has been committed by the accused.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has discussed at length the several meanings of the word' dealer' and has shown that the word applies also to persons who manufacture and sell. It is true that ordinarily the word is applied to a person who sells articles in the same condition in which he bought them but that is because of the large number of traders of this kind to be found in this country. There is nothing wrong in speaking of a 'furniture dealer' even though he may be a manufacturer and may not be merely buying and selling furniture made by others. See in this connection the wide meaning given to the word 'dealer' in N.E. Rly. Co. v. Mayor etc. Kingston-upon-Hull (1891) 7 T.L.R. 302.