Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1400 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar

2003-10-08

S.S.SARON

body2003
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J. - The State of Punjab has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.3.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patiala whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ("Act" for short). 2. At the time of motion hearing, reliance was placed on the judgment in the case State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abdul Khalil, 1974 Cr.L.J. 1113 (M.P.). Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Criminal Procedure Code" for short). 3. A letter dated 24.8.1991 Ex. PC from the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer to the SHO (PP), Tripri Town, Patiala was sent for registration of case (FIR) for contravention of the provisions of the Punjab Commodities Price Marking and Display Order, 1972 ("Control Order" for short). It is alleged therein that on 24.8.1991, the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer along with Inspector, Food and Supplies and four Sub-Inspectors checked the premises of M/s. Jolly Karyana Bhandar, Tripri Town, Patiala. Rakesh Kumar (respondent), proprietor of the shop was present at the shop. Essential commodities like Dals, Flour, Ghee etc. were lying at the shop but the shopkeeper had not displayed the price list of these articles outside his shop. The statement of Rakesh Kumar (respondent) was recorded but he refused to sign the same. It is alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and the Control Order. On the basis of the said letter, FIR No. 178 dated 24.8.1991 Ex. PB was registered at Police Station, Civil LInes, Patiala for an offence under Section 7 of the Act. 4. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record held that the appellant-State had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and acquitted him. The said order of the Special Judge, Patiala, as already noticed, is assailed in this appeal. 5. Ms. 4. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record held that the appellant-State had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and acquitted him. The said order of the Special Judge, Patiala, as already noticed, is assailed in this appeal. 5. Ms. Rupinder Kaur Wasu, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State has contended that the learned trial Court committed an illegality in holding that there was no contravention of Clause 3 of the Control Order on the basis of the judgment in the case State v. Hansraj Depar and others, 1972 Cr.L.J. 951, wherein non-compliance of Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (Display and Marking of Price) Order, 1966 was held to be not amounting to contravention within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. Whereas in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abdul Khalil (supra), it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that failure to display the price of soap, which was an essential commodity under the Act, was treated under the M.P. Essential Articles (Exhibition and Distribution) Order to be an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the order under appeal, it is contended, is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 6. In response, Shri P.S. Sullar, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Ram Chand, Criminal Appeal No. 402-DBA of 1992, decided on 23.10.2002, to contend that even if the appeal is allowed, the acquittal is not liable to be disturbed at this stage. 7. It is appropriate to note that Clause 3 of the Control Order envisages that any dealer who deals in the commodities mentioned in the schedule to the Control Order is required to display duly signed, printed or handwritten price list of the articles at his shop. The said Control Order has been promulgated under Section 7 of the Act and its violation amounts to an offence punishable under the Act. 8. The said Control Order has been promulgated under Section 7 of the Act and its violation amounts to an offence punishable under the Act. 8. In State of Punjab v. Ram Chand (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court noticed the fact that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Hansraj Depar and others, 1972 Cr.L.J. 951 was reversed by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Hansraj Depar Parle Oil Centre etc., 1977 Cr.L.J. 833 holding that failure to display the price of articles specified in Schedule-I of the Maharashtra Order is contravention of the order which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act even though Clause 4 is not contravened. In fact, this very controversy was considered by this Court in the aforesaid case State of Punjab v. Ram Chand (supra). It was held therein as follows :- "After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I am of the view that the trial Court was in error in acquitting the accused. The judgment of Bombay High Court relied on by the trial Court was overruled and reversed by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Hansraj Depar Parle Oil Centre etc., 1977 Cr.L.J. 833 : 1977(2) SCC 216, holding "it is impossible to subscribe to the view that clauses 3 and 4 of the Order of 1966 are so inter-linked that the legislature did not intend to punish the contravention of the former unless such contravention was accompanied by a contravention of the latter provision. The wedding of the two clauses in this fashion is entirely unwarranted." Since the judgment of the Bombay High Court has been expressly reversed and overruled by the Apex Court, I need not refer to the judgment in Abdul Khalils case (supra) relied on by counsel for the State. Even though logical consequence of the above order will be setting aside acquittal and convicting of the accused or remanding the matter, but having regard to the fact that the alleged violation took place long back and the appeal could not be taken up for hearing for the last more than ten years, I do not disturb acquittal at this stage. In fact, learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that the State was interested in having the law clarified, even if acquittal was not disturbed at this stage. In fact, learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that the State was interested in having the law clarified, even if acquittal was not disturbed at this stage. The appeals are disposed of accordingly." 9. In view of the above judgment, in the case in hand also the appeal was filed in 1992 and leave to appeal was granted on 28.9.1992. The appeal has been pending for the last about 11 years. Therefore, in terms of the order in State of Punjab v. Ram Chand (supra), the acquittal is not disturbed at this stage and the appeal is disposed of the same terms. Order accordingly.