Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Champalal on 13 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: RLW2003(3)RAJ1495, 2002(1)WLN5
JUDGMENT Garg, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 28.10.86 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Sessions Judge) Balotara in Cr. Case No. 8/1985 by which he acquitted the accused respondent for contravention of Provisions of Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing) Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order of 1980") punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
This appeal arises in the following circumstances:
CO P.W.I Gaga Ram filed a complaint Ex.P/11 on 30.7.85 before SHO Police Station, Sivana stating that on 9.7.85 being Enforcement Inspector he inspected and checked the shop of Deora Oil Mill, Mahaveer Colony, Sivana whose proprietor was the accused respondent and found storage of food grains, but he was not having licence for storage and sale of food grain articles and, therefore, he contravened the provisions of Order of 1980 punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. On this complaint, police registered a case and chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/12 and started investigation.
3. After usual investigation police filed challan against the accused respondent on 17.12.85 for contravention of terms of some clause of Order of 1980 punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
4. On 6.2.86 the learned Special Judge framed charge against the accused respondents that by keeping food grain articles without licence, he breached Clause 3 & 15 of the Order of 1980 which is punishable Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and this charge was denied by the accused respondent and claimed trial.
5. During trial, as many as 5 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and accused respondent examined himself as D.W.I.
6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge vide vide judgment and order dated 28.10.86 acquitted the accused respondent of the aforesaid charge inter alia holding that:
i) On 9,7.85 it is well proved that the accused respondent was selling food grain articles without licence and all the articles which were being sold by him, were duly entered in the register as required by law and they were found correct.
ii) Stock was also found correct.
iii) As soon as accused respondent came to know before checking that some licence was necessary, he applied for the licence on 28.6.85 and same has been produced by the prosecution itself and the same is Ex.P/1.
iv) The witnesses of the prosecution have further admitted that when the case was registered on 9.7.85 against the accused respondent, the licence was not issued to him.
v) The accused respondent had rebutted presumption of culpable mental state as is found in Section 10C of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the accused respondent was selling the articles in bonafide belief and thus, he did not commit any offence and he was acquitted.
7. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order, the present state appeal has been filed.
8. In this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the State that:
since on the relevant date i.e. on 9.7.85, the accused respondent was not having valid licence for sale and distribution of food grains, therefore, he should have been convicted and the findings of learned trial Judge by which he acquitted the accused respondent for the said charge are erroneous one and should be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made buy the learned P.P. and submits that the judgment passed by the Learned trial Judge is based on correct appreciation of evidence and does not call for interference by this Court.
10. I have heard both.
11. There is no dispute on the fact that on 9.7.85 the shop of accused respondent was checked by P.W.1 Gaja ram and food grain articles were found and on that date, he was not having any licence for storage as well as for sale of food grains. There is also no dispute on the point that on 28.6.85, the accused respondent had already applied for licence and it is also no dispute on the point that thee is no case against him that he was selling the food grains articles in black marketing and any irregularities were found in the stock register etc.
12. In my considered opinion, in these circumstances, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge are correct one and he has also rightly held that the accused has rebutted presumption of culpable mental state. For convenience, Section 10C of the Essential Commodities Act is reproduced hereunder:
"10C. Presumption of culpable Mental State: (1) in any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution."
13. In the present case since the present accused respondent had already applied for licence on 28.6.85 and the same is produced by prosecution itself in the shape of Ex.P/1, in these circumstances, it can easily be said that accused was under the bonafide belief that he would be granted licence at any time and thus the accused respondent has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he did not have culpable mental state while making storage of food grain articles.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1), while interpreting the provisions of Essential Commodities Act held that if accused was under bonafide impression that licence in regard to which he had made application was issued to him though not actually sent to him. It was under this impression that he had stored the grain and the fact that Licensing Authority did not communicate to him the rejection of his application confirmed the accused's belief. In the above circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused appellant in that case.
15. In the present case, the application for issuing the licence was not rejected, but still it was pending, therefore, from every point of view the accused respondent has rebutted presumption of culpable mens-rea as it can safely be said that the accused respondent was carrying on business under bonafide belief and necessary mens rea for contravention of provisions of Order of 1980 has not been established. Hence, the accused respondent was not found guilty rightly for contravention of provisions of Order of 1980 by the learned Special Judge.
Thus, the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, by which he acquitted the accused respondent for contravention of Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing) Order, 1980 punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act do not require interference by this Court and the appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons mentioned above, the present state appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 28.10.1986 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Sessions Judge, Balotara) Criminal Case No. 8/1985.