HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) ACCUSED Pmkashchanrlra, Roshanlal and Canesh-prasad were prosecuted Under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act read with Clause 15 (1), Cotton Textile Control Order and Sections 3 and 18, Madhya Bharat Cloth and Yarn Dealer's Licensing Order, 1949 before the Municipal Magistrate, Indore (who is the Magistrate of First Class) who found them not guilty and acquitted them.
(2.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate.
(3.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that Mr. Sinha of the Enforcement Branch on coming to know that the cloth was being sold at the shop of the accused in Krishnapura at rates higher than those fixed by law decided to lay a trap and effect a raid. He therefore selected a decoy witness Babu-lal Asava who was given marked notes of Rs. 75 and sent to the shop in question for making purchase of Cotton Cloth on 18-10-1950. It is said that Babulal approaches the shop of the respondent in Krishnapura and purchases a 'than' of long Cloth (Haralo for Rs. 43-10-0 and a pair of 'dhoties' for Rs. 16-12-0. It is said that no cash memo was given to Babulal. The amount thus realised from Babulal at the shop of respondent was in excess of the control price for each of the commodity aforesaiifct The total excess amount realised according to the prosecution was Rs. 15-14-6. It was further alleged that the licence of the shop was suspended on 30-81950 for a period of two months and that the impugned transaction was of this period The accused were therefore prosecuted for violation of Glauses 3 and 8 of the Madhya Bharat Cotton and Yarn Dealers Licensing order and Clause 15 (1) of die Madhya Bharat Cotton Textile Control Order. Questions as regards the merits of the decision of the trial Court and those relating to procedural errors were raised in this appeal,;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.