Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)Manipur Administration vs M. Nila Chandra Singh on 29 November, 1963
Moreover this case is clearly governed by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manipur Administration v. M. Nilo Chandra Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1533. There the accused was found storing 179 maunds of paddy in his godown without any licence in violation of Clause 3 of Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. The provisions of Clause 3(i) and (ii) of Orissa Order are almost identical with Clause 3(1) and (2) of Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order. The definition of 'dealer' in both the orders is the same. In that case their Lordships held that the statutory presumption raised by Clause 3(2) is a rebuttable presumption and only amounts to this and nothing more, that the stock found with a given individual of 100 or more maunds of the specified foodgrains had been stored by him for the purpose of sale. Having reached this conclusion on the strength of presumption, the prosecution will still have to show that the store of the foodgrains for the purpose of sale thus presumed was made by him for the purpose of carrying on the business of store (sale?) of the said foodgrains. The clement of business which is essential to attract the provisions of Clause 3(1) is thus not covered by the presumption raised under Clause 3(2). That part of the case would still have to be, proved by the prosecution by other independent evidence. If may be that this part of the case can be proved by the prosecution by showing that store of 100 mds. or more of the foodgrains was found with the said person more than once. How many times it should be necessary to prove the discovery of such store with the said person is a matter which their Lordships did not decide in that case. But their Lordships further observed that all that is necessary to be said in connection with the presumption under Clause 3(2) in that case is that after the presumption is raised under it, some evidence must be led which would justify the conclusion that the store which was made for the purpose of sale was made by the person for the purpose of carrying on the business. Their Lordships were of the opinion that Clause 3(2) may have been deliberately worded so as to raise the presumption in order to exclude the cases of cultivators who may on occasions be in possession of more than the permissible limits of foodgrains.
1