Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 382 (MP)

Sukhuram v. State Of M. P.

2000-04-08

A.K.MISHRA

body2000
JUDGMENT A.K. Mishra, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal assailing his conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on having been found guilty of violation of Clause 6 (4) of the M.P. (Food) Public Distribution Scheme, 1981. The appellant was sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in lieu of which it is ordered to undergo further R.I. for four months. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the appellant was possession a licence of fair price shop and while holding the said licence he violated Clause 6 (4) of the M.P. (Food) Public Distribution Scheme, 1981. Allegation against the appellant was that quantity of grain and sugar issued to the appellant was higher and on verification the same was found to be lesser in quantity. Thus, prosecution alleges that the appellant was guilty of selling it in an illegal manner. 3. The trial Court found that the appellant had violated M.P. (Food Stuffs) Public Distribution Scheme, 1981. Under Clause 6 (4) of the said scheme, it was incombent upon the appellant to make the sale only to the ration card holders. For violation of Clause 6 (4) of the said Scheme of 1981 the appellant has been convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 4 Learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one submission that M.P. Khadya Padarth Sarvajanik Nagrik Purti Vitran Scheme, 1981 is not an Order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Hence, the appellant could not be convicted for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He has placed reliance upon the definition of the Order under the said Scheme. Clause 2 (d) runs as under : "Clause 2 (d). "Government Scheme" means the Scheme for distribution of food/stuffs "to consumers through fair price shops set up by the government in this behalf." 5. This Court has considered the matter with respect to violation of the said Scheme of 1981 umpteen numbers of time. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Mohan v. State of M.P. ( 1990 JLJ 348 ) wherein it has been observed that the Scheme being executive in nature, conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Mohan v. State of M.P. ( 1990 JLJ 348 ) wherein it has been observed that the Scheme being executive in nature, conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on other decisions of this Court taking similar view in case of Santosh Kumar v. State of M.P., reported in 1995 (1) MPWN 29 , Phoolchand v. State of M.P., reported in 1994 (1) MPWN 17 and in case of Vishnu Prasad v. State of M.P., reported in 1993 (1) MPWN 103 and another decision relied upon is 1993 (1) MPWN 120 (Maniram v. State of M.P.). 7. Validity of the scheme was considered in case of M.P. Ration Vikreta, Sangh and Ors. v. Stale of M.P. and Anr. ( 1981 JLJ 564 ), wherein it was held that a scheme was not made in exercise of any powers conferred by the order. The definition in Clause 2 (d) postulates the scheme is one which is made in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. It was held that the distribution of foodstuffs is covered by Entry 33 in List III of the Seventh Schedule and so the executive power of the State extends to frame such a scheme. It was held by the Division Bench that the scheme was not made in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act and was made only in exercise of the executive powers of the State. The decision was affirmed by the Apex Court on appeal in case of M.P. Ration Vikreta, Sangh v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1981 SC 2001 ). 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State is not able to point out any subsequent development making the Scheme an Order as contained under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and taking it out of purview of executive order. 9. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is not sustainable. It is set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed upon the appellant is set aside.