BINOD BEHARI LAL Vs. REX
LAWS(ALL)-1947-9-1
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 01,1947

BINOD BEHARI LAL Appellant
VERSUS
REX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MALIK, J. - (1.) THESE connected revisions have been filed by Benod Behari Lal and Amrit Lal Saraiya. Amrit Lal Saraiya was the Chief Goods Clerk at Agra Port Railway Station, B. B. and C. I., and Binod Behari Lal was the loading clerk at the same station. The applicants have been convicted under the Government of India Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order, 1943, Clause 8, for having accepted for despatch sugar from the United Provinces to Indore without the necessary permit.
(2.) THE Government of India Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order, 1943, Clause 2 (f) defines sugar as meaning, (i) any form of sugar containing more than 90 per cent. of sucrose; (ii) any sugar of crystalline structure. If, therefore, sugar has sucrose contents exceeding 90 per cent. or is of crystalline structure, it comes under this Order. Clause 8 of the Order provides that : "No sugar shall, after such date as the Controller may notify in this behalf, be offered for transport by railway, or in any manner whatsoever by land or water by a consignor or accepted by a railway servant or by any person whatsoever for transport except under a permit issued by the Controller in such form and subject to such conditions and in respect of such areas as he may from time to time prescribe." Learned counsel for the applicants has urged that there was no notification issued by the controller as required by this clause and the previous notification dated 10th October 1942, issued in pursuance of Clause 5, Sugar Control Order, 1942, must be deemed to have lapsed after the Sugar Control Order, 1942, was superseded. It is not necessary for me in these cases to go into that question because the prosecution must fail on another ground.
(3.) CERTAIN bags containing what was described as shakkar were booked from Agra Fort Station to Indore under permits from the Deputy Regional Food Controller, Meerut. The goods were tendered by one Parbhu Dayal, who was the servant of a firm Babulal Chhoteylal at Indore. These permits were also for "shakkar". In the forwarding notes and the indents filled in by Parbhu Dayal the contents of the bags were described as shakkar. On receipt of these bags, the Chief Goods Clerk made out indents for wagons. These indents were D -11, P -A and P -B. In all these it was entered that the wagons were required for despatch of 'sugar'. It appears that the railway have two rates. Rupee 1 -1 -5 per maund is charged as freight for transport of "sugar" from Agra Fort Station to Indore, while Re. 1 is charged as freight for "jaggery powder". Freight was charged at the rate of Re. 1 -1 -5. From the fact that Amrit Lal had indented wagons to transport sugar and had charged freight at Re. 1 -1 -5 the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that he must have known that the goods that were being transported were sugar of the quality mentioned in the Control Order. Learned counsel states that the attention of the learned Sessions Judge was drawn to the B. B. and C. I. Tariff Manual, Part I, which sets out the rates at which various goods are classified for despatch, and "sugar" in this Tariff Manual is said to include shakkar, but not ground sugar or powdered jaggery. According to the Tariff, therefore, Amrit Lal was entitled to treat as sugar the goods that were described as shakkar. The conduct of Amrit Lal, therefore, cannot amount to an admission that the sugar or shakkar contained sucrose more than 90 per cent. or crystalline. In the complaint the goods were described by the prosecution as khandsari sugar and that term has been adhered to throughout as describing the goods that were being sent. The learned Sessions Judge has said that there was overwhelming evidence that the commodity received at the station was khandsari sugar. The learned Deputy Government Advocate is unable to point to any such evidence. The only witness who said that the sugar was khandsari sugar was Parbhu Dayal, who may be treated as an accomplice and was, at one time, under arrest by the police but was not prosecuted. He was the person who bad booked the goods as agent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.