Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 259 (MP)

Anand Kumar Jain v. State of M. P.

2003-02-07

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2003
JUDGMENT This revision has been directed against the order dated 14.3.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sagar in Special Case No. 32/97, whereby the applicant has been charged under Clause 6(1) and 6(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Prices and Price Control) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'). The essential facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the elder brother of the applicant namely Subhash Chand Jain is a Licensee Dealer under the M.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restirction on Hoarding) Order, 1991. The said Subhas Chand Jain is earring his business in the name and Style of M/s Subhash Chand Anand Kumar Jain" (herein after referred to as 'the firm'). The said firm is registered in the Local Sales Tax Office for the purposes of taxation on the sale of the goods in which the firm is dealing. The said firm deals in the sale and produce of foodgrains and pulses. On 13.12.1-996 at about 4 p.m., the Food Inspector inspected the business premises of the firm and found certain irregularities which are mentioned in the charge sheet. The enquiry report of the Inspector was submitted to the Collector, who ultimately directed to lodge the FIR in the concerning police station against the applicant. The police after taking cognizance investigated the matter and filed charge sheet before the trial Court. The trial Court thereafter, framed charges against the applicant under clause 6(1) and 6(2) of the order as the same was found punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The applicant herein has assailed the order framing the charge by the trial Court. Shri Masood Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant is neither the proprietor nor a dealer of the firm. To bolster his contention he has referred to the licence issued in the name of the firm and the registration certificate to demonstrate that the applicant is neither dealer nor proprietor of the firm and therefore the trial Court erred in law in framing the aforesaid charges against the applicant. Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State on the other hand contended that the learned trial judge did not err in framing the charges against the applicant and, therefore, revision deserves to be dismissed. Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State on the other hand contended that the learned trial judge did not err in framing the charges against the applicant and, therefore, revision deserves to be dismissed. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. Clause 2 (a) of the order deals with the definition of the word "dealer", which reads as under :- "dealer" means a person who carries on the business of selling by retail or wholesale or storing for sale by retail or wholesale any commodity whether or not such business is carried in addition to any other business; but does not include a hawker or a pedlar. Or an oil company storage depot or installation wherefrom no sales are made to general public." Clause 3 of the said order reads about the exhibition of Price list, which is reproduced as under-" 3. Exhibition of Price List -- (1) Every dealer shall exhibit at the entrance or some other prominent place of his business premises the price list of essential comodities held in stock by him for sale. (2) The price list shall, (a) indicate separately the prices of different categories or varieties of essential commodities; (b) bear the Signature of the dealer and. (c) be legibly written in Hindi language and devnagari script. (3) Every dealer shall prominently exhibit a separate list showing the stock of different categories or varieties of essential commodities held by him at the end of the day preceding." Clause 6 is in regard to maintenance of accounts by the dealer. On bare perusal of the licence and the registration certificate Annexure A-2 and A-3,"espectively, it would reveal that the applicant Anand Kumar Jain is not dealer in register of the firm. My attention has been drawn on the entire charge sheet filed before the learned trial judge and it has been put forth by Shri Masood Ali that on the bare perusal of the entire charge sheet, it could not be gathered that the applicant is a dealer. My attention has been drawn on the entire charge sheet filed before the learned trial judge and it has been put forth by Shri Masood Ali that on the bare perusal of the entire charge sheet, it could not be gathered that the applicant is a dealer. In support of his contention Shri Masood Ali, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1998 (1) EFR 370 and Kalyanmal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh Crimes 1992 (1) 570. On perusal of the decisions of this Court passed in the case of Ganesh Prasad (supra) and Kalyanmal (supra) it is found that only a dealer can be prosecuted. The learned Panel Lawyer could not point out that how the applicant can be included under the definition of the 'dealer'. In this view of the matter, the learned trial judge erred in law in framing charges against the applicant under Clause 6(1) and 6(2) of the Order. In the result, the impugned order, framing the charge, is hereby set aside. The revision petition is allowed.