Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 336 (KER)

Poulose v. State of Kerala

1989-08-11

BALAKRISHNAN

body1989
Judgment :- 1. The appellant challenges the conviction and sentence against him in S.T.No.19 of 1988 on the file of the Special Court for trial of offences under the E.C. Act, Trichur. He was found guilty of offence punishable under S.7(1)(a)(ii) read with S.3(2) (c) and (d) of the E.C. Act and Clause.3 of the Kerala Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order. 2. The appellant was tried along with one Varkey, who was a ration dealer in respect of shop NO.ARD.99. The appellant, who was 2nd accused in the case, claims to be a dealer in foodgrains. On 6-4-87 PW9, Dy.S.P. (Civil Supplies Cell) searched the godown belonging to the accused. PW9 recovered 4479 bags of raw rice and 5 bags of boiled rice and 881.51 grams of wheat. These articles were seized under Ext.P1 mahazar. The 1st accused stated that the premises of the godown was leased out to the 2nd accused and local Block Development Officer. During investigation it was found that the rice allotted to the B.D.O. under N.R.E.P. and R.L.E.G.P. schemes was also stored in this godown. Later the District Collector directed that the rice stored by the B.D.O. be given to him. Besides this there was an excess of 240 quintals of raw rice and 2.32 quintals of boiled rice and 7.29 quintals of wheat. 3. The 2nd accused contended that he had a valid licence to store rice in the godown. He also contended that the excess quantity was the rice belonging to him. The 2nd accused produced Exts.D1 to D3 documents to prove that he had a valid licence under the Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order. The court below examined the question and held that the 2nd accused had only licence upto 31-3-1985 and on the date of the seizure he had no licence. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the seizure of the excess quantity of rice is proved in this case and Ext.D1 licence issued to the appellant was renewed with retrospective effect from 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1988 and therefore, it is to be presumed that he had a valid licence as on 6-4-1987. It is difficult to accept this contention. 5. Ext.Dl licence was issued to the appellant on 10-9-1984. The licence was valid upto 31-3-1985. Thereafter on 6-4-1987 PW9 conducted the search and seized the rice from the godown belonging to the appellant. It is difficult to accept this contention. 5. Ext.Dl licence was issued to the appellant on 10-9-1984. The licence was valid upto 31-3-1985. Thereafter on 6-4-1987 PW9 conducted the search and seized the rice from the godown belonging to the appellant. The appellant has no case that he had a valid licence as on 6-4-1987. On 23-4-1987 the appellant filed an application to renew Ext.D1 licence on payment of a fee of Rs.30/- for renewal of the licence and the District Supply Officer renewed the licence upto 31-3-1988 and an endorsement is seen made in Ext.D1 licence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant under first proviso to Clause.5 of the Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order a licence may be renewed for more than one year but not exceeding three years at a time. It was further contended that Clause.5(1A) of the Licensing Order would enable the dealer to carry on business even without a licence and he need only renew the licence at a later stage. It is apposite to extract Clause.5(1A) of the Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order. 115 (1A) If the dealer fails to surrender his licence and inform the Licensing Authority about the cessation of his business before the end of the period of validity of the licence, he shall continue to be liable to remit the renewal fee and collection of renewal fee shall be without prejudice to any other action which the Licensing Authority may take for non-renewal of licence". 6. Sub-clause 1A to Clause.5 does not empower the dealer to carry on business without a licence. It only states that if the dealer fails to surrender his licence and inform the Licensing Authority about the cessation of his licence before the end of the period stipulated in the licence, he would be liable to pay the renewal fee. It is true that no specific period has been made in any of these clauses to file an application for renewal of the licence. It may also be possible that a renewal could be effected from a retrospective date. But the crucial question in this case is whether the appellant had a valid licence as on 6-4-87 and whether the subsequent renewal of the licence with retrospective effect would save him from the penal consequences. The appellant has no case that he had filed an application for renewal prior to the seizure of the articles. But the crucial question in this case is whether the appellant had a valid licence as on 6-4-87 and whether the subsequent renewal of the licence with retrospective effect would save him from the penal consequences. The appellant has no case that he had filed an application for renewal prior to the seizure of the articles. The application was filed only two weeks after the seizure of the goods. As he had no licence on that date it has to be held that he violated Clause.3 of the Foodgrain Dealers Licensing Order. It cannot be held that the subsequent renewal would take effect from the. retrospective date so as to save him from penal liability. Even in Clause.5(1A) of the Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, it has been specifically mentioned that the collection of renewal fee is without prejudice to any other action which the Licensing Authority may take for non-renewal of the licence. The Licensing Authority has been given powers to take action for the failure to take proper licence. Therefore, the contention of the appellant's counsel that Ext.D1 licence was in force as on 6-4-1987 and hence no offence was committed, cannot be accepted. The conviction and sentence entered against the appellant is not liable to be set aside. Crl. Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.