RAMESHWAR LAL MARWARI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and has. been sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 The sentence has been maintained by the appellate Court. The case against him was that he had violated the terms of his licence under the Food Grains Control Order by not maintaining his books properly as required by the said licence. What happened was that at 11 A.M. the Marketing Inspector visited his shop. The books showed a stock of 6 mds. wheat and 2 rods, atta, but instead of that what was found was 8 maunda atta and no wheat.

(2.) The defence was that the accused sold atta and not wheat, and that since early morning, when the register was entered up, the 6 maunds of wheat had been ground into atta. There was absolutely no evidence in the case to contradict or rebut this defence. The Courts below have merely stated that they could not believe it possible to have 6 maunds ground in the time. But that view seems to be based on no materials. The shop-keeper is not expected to keep his books entered up to the minute. The ordinary course of business will be to write up the books once daily.

(3.) In the circumstances it does not appear to me that any non-compliance with the terms of the licence was established. The Courts below have taken the view that the 6 maunds of wheat must have been removed somewhere for some ulterior purpose, but that also seems to be based on no materials, and takes no account of the fact that the exact amount of wheat, which had disappeared, had re-appeared as atta. The application is allowed, the rule is made absolute, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted.