STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. FAZAL HUSAIN RAJABALI BOHRA
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FAZAL HUSAIN RAJABALI BOHRA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE respondent Fazal Hussain was convicted by Magistrate First Class, khandwa, under Rule 125 (9) (a) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the Rules) for failing to exhibit, as required by Clause 4 of the Essential articles (Price Control) Order, 1963 (which, for brevity, would hereinafter be called the Order), a list of essential articles held by him together with the price of each such article and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. However, in the appeal filed by Fazal Hussain, the Sessions Judge, East Nimar, acquitted him on the ground that the Order was not duly published as required by rule 141 of the Rules. The State Government have now come up in appeal against the acquittal.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that, at about 8 P. M. on 6th May 1963, when a police party visited the shop of Fazal Hussain, who carried on business in essential articles like soap, kerosene oil, vegetable products etc. , it did not find prominently displayed in the shop, as required by Clause 4 of the Order, any special board giving a list of the essential articles in stock together with the price of each such article. At that time, Section I. Narbada Singh P. W. 3 seized from the shop, vide seizure memo Ex. P-1, a bill book Article A and another paper Article B
(3.) IN answer to the charge, Fazal Hussain did not dispute that he vended essential articles and had them in stock on 6 May 1963 but pleaded that the police party had visited the shop when it was being closed, that a list of the articles was there inside the shop and that, in the absence of any proclamation of the Order and its provisions, he had no information about them.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.