Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1927 (ALL)

MAHESH CHANDRA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-07-19

SAROJ BALA

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala, J.—The applicant by means of this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. prays for the quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 38 of 1987, State v. Mahesh Chandra, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act pending in the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act) Agra. 2. The facts giving rise to this application in a nutshell are these : On 19.4.1985 the Marketing Inspector Kheragarh alongwith Naib-Tahsildar, Secretary Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Agricultural Marketing Inspector inspected the business premises of M/s. Jagdish Floor and Oil Mill situated at bypass road Kheragarh and found twelve drums of mustard oil weighing 21-34-200, oil cake weighing 11-19-30 and mustard seeds weighing 58-90-600 in stock. The business of selling oil seeds and oil was being carried out without licence in contravention of U.P. Oil Seeds Control Order, 1966 and Oil Seeds Products Control Order (hereinafter referred to as 1966 Order). The applicant was challaned for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and case crime No. 50 of 1985 was registered. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Agra. 3. The contention of the applicant is that he being a producer of mustard oil, he is not a retailer or a wholesaler. The applicant not being a wholesaler or retailer, he was not required to have licence under 1966 Order, and Price Display Order, 1977. The goods seized were released on furnishing security in compliance of the order of this Court dated 6.1.1987 passed in the writ petition. The provisions of 1966 Order are not applicable to the producer as held by this Court in the case of M/s. Hari Oil and General Mills and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1987 E.F.R. 211. 4. Heard Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and have perused the record. 4-A. The learned Counsel for the applicant argued that 1966 Order does not apply to a manufacturer or producer as such a producer is not required to take licence nor he can be prosecuted or convicted for contravention of the said Control Order. 5. The learned A.G.A. argued that applicant is a dealer within the meaning of 1966 Order as he is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of oil seeds and oil seed products, therefore, he was required to take licence. 6. 5. The learned A.G.A. argued that applicant is a dealer within the meaning of 1966 Order as he is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of oil seeds and oil seed products, therefore, he was required to take licence. 6. Sub-clause (a), (f) and (g) of Clause 2 of 1966 Order define a ‘retail dealer’, ‘wholesaler’ and ‘dealer’. A retail dealer means a dealer who sells to any person at any one time less than 75 Kilograms of any one kind of Oil seeds or less than sixteen Kilograms of any kind of oil or less than 75 Kilograms of oil cake. A Wholesale Dealer means a dealer who sells to any person any one time 75 Kilograms or more of any one kind of oil seeds or sixteen Kilograms or more of any one kind of oil or seventy five Kilograms or more of oil cake. A Dealer means a person engaged in the business of purchase or sale or storage for sale of oil seeds or oil seed products but does not include the Food Corporation of India, the U.P. Food and Essential Commodities Corporation or a dealer who stocks less than 5 quintals of oil or less than 10 quintals of oil seeds or less than 25 quintals of oil cakes. 7. Clause 4 of 1966 Order provides that no dealer or a commission agent shall occupy or set up any premises for purchase or sale of oil seeds or oil seed products, except under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted by the Regional Food Controller under this order. 8. The Pulses Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil (Storage Control) Order, 1977 promulgated by the Central Government extended to the whole of India. Clause 2 (e) defines a Commission Agent. Clause 2 (f) defines a dealer as a person engaged in the business of purchase sale or storage for sale of any pulses edible oilseeds or edible oils whether or not in conjunction with any other business and includes his representative or agent. Clause 2(j) defines a producer as a person carrying on the business of milling any of the pulses or expelling, extracting, manufacturing or refining any edible oil. Clause 2(j) defines a producer as a person carrying on the business of milling any of the pulses or expelling, extracting, manufacturing or refining any edible oil. The definition of ‘producer’ was amended by S.O. No. 64 (e) it defines a producer as a person carrying on the business of milling any of the pulses or expelling, extracting or manufacturing any edible oil (i) by buying pulses or edible oil seeds for being processed by himself and selling the finished products to a wholesaler or through a commission agent or (ii) by doing any of the processes of milling, expelling, extracting or manufacturing on behalf of another. The Central Order distinguishes a producer from a retailer and wholesaler. 9. A producer is not a dealer within the meaning of clause 2 (g) of 1966 Order. A producer purchases oilseeds and sells oil seed products. The question whether a producer is a dealer within the meaning of Clause 2 (g) of 1966 Order came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Hari Oil and General Mills v. State of U.P. and others, 1987 EFR 211, and it was held that ‘the word dealer which is defined in Clause 2 (g) of 1966 Order was defined comprehensively to include retail dealer and wholesale dealer. The word dealer cannot be extended to include in the context in which it is placed to include a producer of oil products from oil seeds.’ 10. The applicant not being a dealer within the meaning of 1966 Order he was not required to have licence under Clause 4 of the 1966 Order and cannot be prosecuted for the breach of the conditions of a licence. 11. In view of what has been discussed above the application succeeds and is allowed. The proceedings of criminal case No. 38 of 1987, State v. Mahesh Chandra, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act pending in the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act) Agra are quashed. ————