Patna High Court
Ram Saran Jha vs Emperor on 23 December, 1936
Equivalent citations: 169IND. CAS.312, AIR 1937 PATNA 242
JUDGMENT Agarwala, J.
1. The petitioner, who is employed as a Jamadar by the Sakri sugarcane mill at their weigh bridge station at Benipur, was charged with a breach of Rule 18 of (the Bihar and Orissa Sugarcane Rules, 1934. He was convicted and 'sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The rule under which he has been convicted is one of the "rules framed in pursuance of Section 7, Sugarcane Act of 1934. By its preamble that Act is declared to be an Act for regulating the price at which sugarcane intended to be used in the manufacture of sugar may be purchased by and for factories for the purpose of assuring to sugarcane growers a fair price for their produce. Section 3 empowers the Local Government to declare any area to be a controlled area for the purpose of the Act and to fix a minimum [price at which sugarcane may be purchased in any controlled area when intended to be used in the manufacture of sugar. Section 5 of the Act is in the following terms :
Whoever, in any controlled area purchases 'any sugarcane intended for use in a factory area price less than the minimum price fixed therefor by notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, or in contravention of any prohibition made under Sub-section (3) of Section 3, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
2. Section 7 empowers the Local Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects of the Act. Sub-section (37) of Section 7 empowers the Local Government to provide for a fine not exceeding two thousand rupees to be imposed for a breach of some of the rules. It was not suggested in this case that r.18 is not one of the rules for breach of which the Local Government is empowered to provide for the infliction of a fine. The Local Government of Bihar and Orissa have framed rules under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and those rules are entitled the Bihar and Orissa Sugarcane Rules, 1934. Rule 18 is in the following terms:
Whoever, in circumstances where it would amount in effect to an attempt to evade the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification, consideration, bonus, set-off, luck money or any other such money whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for weighing or purchasing sugarcane or for making payment therefore, or for showing or forbearing to show in connection with the purchase and weighment of or payment for sugarcane, favour or disfavour to any person shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
3. It is under this rule that the petitioner has been convicted. It is necessary to state the procedure followed by the sugarcane factory which employed the petitioner in order to understand what his position was vis-a-vis the sugarcane growers. It appears that growers of sugarcane desiring to sell their produce to this factory intimate their desire while the crop is still growing and the factory send one of their officers, called the cane assistant, to inspect the crop and form an estimate of the probable amount of the crop. This estimate, with the name and address of the grower, is entered in a list maintained by the factory. This list, in English and in two of the vernacular languages, is suspended at the factory's weigh-bridge. When the crop has been harvested the grower delivers it at the weigh-bridge where it is weighed, and paid for. But before it is possible for the grower of the cane to have it weighed it is necessary for him to produce to the man in charge of the weigh-bridge what has been called a purji. This purji is in effect a copy of the entry relating to the particular grower in the list already referred to, that is to say, it is an authority to the weighman to receive from a particular person a certain amount of sugarcane on behalf of the factory. It was the duty of the petitioner to make up these purjis and distribute them to the persons whose crops had been assessed by the cane assistant. He was, therefore, in a position to delay the weighing of the cane when brought in the factory or to prevent its delivery altogether by not delivering in time or not delivering at all a purji which would authorise the weighman to weigh and receive the cane.
4. The charge against the petitioner is that taking advantage of this position he has been in the habit of demanding payments for himself before making out and delivering the purjis to the persons entitled to them. The charge in the case relates to three cultivators from whom he is said to have taken Rs. 1, Rs. 10 and Rs. 4, respectively. It may be mentioned that the amounts thus levied by the petitioner for his own benefit resulted in the growers of sugarcane receiving about 5 per cent less than the minimum price fixed by the Government for the period and in the controlled area to which the charge relates. The three persons with whom we are concerned in the present' case are Banarsi Purbey, Ramkishun Purbey and Jainarain Purbey. Prom Ex. 3-23 it appeals that the minimum rate fixed by Government in the present instance for the period from December 16, 1935, until the end of that year was five annas three pies a maund. From January 1, the rate was reduced to five annas a maund. Between January 18, 1936, and January 23 of that year, Banarsi Purbey delivered at the factory 126 maunds of cane, the minimum price of which was Rs. 39-6-0, and there is no dispute that this amount was actually paid to him by the factory. But before he delivered this amount he had to obtain purjis from the petitioner and for these purjis he had to pay the petitioner Rs. 10. For the sum thus illegally extorted the petitioner received five purjis, each of which entitled the weighman to receive six carts of sugarcane' from him. Banarsi Purbey deposed that it was in Aghan, that is (to) say, December 1935, that he paid to the petitioner Rs. 10 for the purjis. In the month of December 1935, between 21st and 26th Banarsi Purbey also delivered at the weighbridge 133 maunds and 20 seers of sugarcane and received payment at the then minimum price of five annas three pies a maund, that is to say, Rs. 43-12-9. This was the amount to which be was entitled to and which he actually received. So that during the months of December and January Banarsi Purvey received from the factory Rs. 83-2-9 as the proper price of the sugarcane which he delivered to the factory. But out of that price he had to pay the petitioner Rs. 10. Banarsi Purbey, however, had not utilised all the five purjis which he obtained from the petitioner.
5. From December 21 to 26, 1935, Ram-kishan Purbey delivered to the factory 120 maunds and 10 seers of cane at the minimum price of five annas three pies and received as payment the proper amount, namely Rs. 39-7-3. He also, before being able to have his cane weighed at the weighbridge, had to pay to the petitioner Rs. 4 for two purjis entitling him to deliver six carls of cane. This payment, he said, had been made in Aghan, that is to say, December 1935. Between January 21 1936 and January 23, 1936, Jainarain delivered 59 maunds and 10 seers of cane at the weighbridge and received payment of Rs. 18-8-3 at the then minimum rate of five annas a maund. He states he had, before having bis sugarcane weighed, had to pay one rupees to the petitioner for a purji entitling him to deliver three carts of cane. The question that arises is whether the petitioner is a person who is liable to the penalty mentioned in Rule 18. It is contended that the petitioner is not a purchaser of cane and that Rule 18 must be read with Section 5 and that, so read, its operation is restricted to purchasers of cane. As is indicated by the preamble to the Act the object of the Act is to secure to sugarcane growers a fair price for their produce and the method adopted by the Legislature to achieve this end is to regulate the price at which sugarcane, intended to be used in the manufacture of sugar, may be purchased by or for factories. Section 5 penalises a person who purchases sugarcane in any controlled area for use in a factory at less than the price fixed by the proper authority. But it is obvious that the object of the Legislature in securing the minimum price to the cane grower would be frustrated if some one, not the actual purchaser but whose duty it was to perform some act enabling the grower to perform his contract with the purchaser, were in a position to extract from the cane grower any amount which would have the result of depriving him of the full minimum price for his cane. Bearing this in mind, it is not difficult to understand that the Local Government, in exercise of the rule-making power conferred upon them by Section 7 for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects of the Act, intended to prevent the objects of the Act being frustrated in the manner indicated above and that Rule 18 is desired for that purpose.
6. The opening word of the rule 'whoever' is not restricted in any way to the purchaser of cane and I see no reason why the generality of the expression should be restricted in the manner contended for the learned Counsel for the petitioner. What has to be seen is, whether by demanding gratification or other payment the petitioner prevented the cane growers from receiving the full benefit of the minimum price fixed for their produce. As I have shown above the three cane growers with whom we are concerned, like all other cane growers dealing with the factory, were unable to receive the full minimum rate for their produce because the petitioner insisted on a payment to him before their cane was weighed. Provided the factory was buying cane from them at the minimum rate, and not at any rate in excess of the minimum rate, it follows that the cane growers were not receiving the benefit of the full minimum rate. It was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no evidence that the factory was buying merely at the minimum rate, and he relied on a document on the record for the purpose of showing that for at least one I period, namely in November, the factory was buying at the rate of 5 annas and he contended that, in the absence of proof by the prosecution that the factory paid the three persons with whom we are concerned at the bare minimum rate, it was not possible to hold that the payments to the petitioner had the effect of depriving the growers of the full minimum rate. From the suppliers' accounts maintained by the factory and produced by the defence, it is clear, however that the rates actually paid to Banarsi, Jainarain and Ramkishun were at the minimum rates prescribed by the Local Government in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 3 of the Act. The fact that 5 annas 6 pies was paid in the month of November is explained by the fact that was the minimum rate prescribed by the Local Government in that month : vide Notification No. 2119-D, dated November 11, 1935. It is clear, therefore, that in the view we take of th6 scope of Rule 18, the petitioner is guilty and the conviction was rightly recorded against him.
7. Before leaving this application, however, it is, I think, desirable to comment on the gross carelessness with which the prosecution in this case was conducted in the lower Court. The Government notifications fixing the minimum rate for the periods with which we are concerned were not filed by the Public Prosecutor until the close of the case for the defence No attune was made by the prosecution to prove that the rates paid to the three persons with whom we are concerned, were the minimum rates permitted by the notifications. But for the fortuitous circumstance that the defence filed the factory's suppliers' accounts, the prosecution must have failed for want of this proof. Since however those accounts are on the record and have been proved in due course by the defence, the Court cannot ignore them. It is merely to this circumstance that the prosecution owes the fact that this charge does not fail and not to the vigilance and assiduity of the Public Prosecutor. I would dismiss this application, maintaining the conviction and sentence.
8. Varma, J.-I agree.