HANANTRAM Vs. STATE
LAWS(ORI)-1953-1-5
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on January 27,1953

Hanantram Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PANIGRAHI, J. - (1.) IN these petitions the petitioners, five in all, seek a revision of the judgment of the First Class Magistrate, Angul, convicting them under B. 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act 24 of 1946), and sentencing them to various amounts of fine.
(2.) THE first four petitioners namely, Hunan -tram, Sohan Lal, Bhani Bam and Kishan Ram, belong to a trading family carrying on business in cloth and yarn at Dhenkanal, under the name and style of Nandaram Hunantram. Petitioners 1 to 4 are the sons of Nandaram and are the proprietors of the firm. They have also a branch of their firm at Angul, and petitioner, Paramananda Misra, is their local agent at Angul. All the petitioners have been found guilty of having contravened an order passed under Clause 5, Orissa Cotton Cloth Control Order, 1948, read with Orissa Government Notification No. 29986 ST., dated 30 -7 -1949. Three separate cases were started against the petitioners for alleged charging of a higher price for cloth than that permitted by the aforesaid Notification, under Clause 5, Orissa Cotton Cloth Control Order. The first case was that on 13 -1 -49 the firm at Angul had charged excess profit from the retail seller, Nagarmall Modi (P. W. 2) and that the cash memo issued by the firm in respect of this transaction, was seized by the Inspector of Civil Supplies on 13 -4 -50. The seccond charge was that on 17 -4 -50 the petitioner's firm had collected more than their margin of profit while selling cloth to P. W. 5. The cash memo relating to this transaction was seized by the Assistant Inspector of Civil Supplies (P. W. 1) on 2 -5 -50. The third case was that the petitioners charged excess profit from P. W. 6 on 8 -2 -50. The cash memo relating to this transaction was seized by P. W. 1 on 1 -5 -50.
(3.) THE plea taken by petitioners 1 to 4 was that they were not personally aware Of the alleged transactions and that petitioners 2 to 4 in particular were not licensees under the Orissa Cotton Cloth Control Order. Petitioner 5, Paramananda Misra, denied that he was the agent of the petitioners' firm. His plea was that he was merely a scribe employed by the firm for writing out the cash memos at the shop at Angul.;


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