MANIK LAL MARTIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application it is sought to delete a charge framed against the petitioner, and in order to appreciate the argument the following facts relevant to the point may be stated.

(2.) The petitioner is a dealer in cloth and has a shop in Patna City. On 13th April 1949, a complaint was filed before the Sub-divisional Officer of Patna City by Diva Kanta Jha, a Supply Inspector of Patna, against the petitioner and three others. It was alleged in the complaint that on 11th April 1949, at about 6 P. M., one Rameshwar Prasad had made a report that saris in the shop of the petitioner were being sold at a price higher than the controlled price. On this report, D. K. Jha informed the District Supply Inspector who signed five Government currency notes of Rs. 10 each and gave them to Rameshwar Prasad who was asked to make some test purchases from the petitioner's shop. Rameshwar Prasad went there and returned with the information that he had purchased three pairs of saris at a price higher than the controlled price and further that he had not been granted any cash memo. Thereafter, D. K. Jha, together with some others, entered into the shop of the petitioner and made enquiries and he was informed that no such sale had taken place. It is further alleged that when he demanded the production of the cash memo book, registers and other Bahis, his demand was refused. So, he put four seals on the locks of the shop in the presence of certain witnesses and the petitioner was given an order in writing to take care of the seals. On the next morning, however, i.e., on 12th April 1949, he was informed that the seals had been broken. He then went to the shop and found that the seals had actually been broken, He reported the matter to the District Magistrate who deputed a Deputy Magistrate to make an enquiry and ordered D. K. Jha to file a complaint before the Sub-divisional Officer, Patna City.

(3.) In the complaint the accused named therein, including the petitioner, were alleged to have committed these offences, namely, (1) under Clause 9 (1), Bihar Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1948, for having sold cloth at a price higher than that fixed by the Controller, (2) under Clause 10 (b) of the same Order for the refusal to produce the Bahis and other papers which were required to be produced; and they were also alleged to have committed offences under Sections 175 and 188, Penal Code.