V. N. Misra, J. - (1.) THESE are two Government Appeals against the acquittal of Roshan Lal and Kishori Lal by Sri S. K. Agnihotri, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, dated 9-6-1975, in two cases brought against them under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under Rule 114 (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case was that on 31-7-1974 at about 8 in the evening Sri R. K. Misra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barah Mandal, as Enforcement Officer, raided the shop of the accused-respondents situate in Karkhana Bazar in the city of Almora. The shop of Kishori Lal was run under the name and style of M/s. Badri Prasad & Sons and the shop of Roshan Lal was run under the name and style of M/s. Gokul Chand Chandra Prakash and the accused-respondents were owners of these two shops. These raids were made in the presence of Khajan Singh Kain, Tehslldar Almora, Pratap Singh Kaira, Reader of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, G. D. Sati, Sub-Inspector Police and Shabbir Ahmad Khan, Chairman, Nagarpalika, Almora. The accused-respondents remained present throughout these raids. On a checking of the shops some essential commodities stored in the shops were not found as entered in the stock register. Certain other commodities were less in quantity than what was shown in the stock register and certain other essential commodities were found in excess of the stock. Certain other commodities were found entered in the stock register, but were not found in the shop. The accused-respondents had not entered the price of these essential commodities on the cover or cartons of these commodities as fixed by the State or Central Government. At the shop of Kishori Lal in cash memo book from serial No. 11801 to serial No. 11808 the names of the purchasers and their addresses were not given in the cash memo issued. The stock list was also not properly made. It was written on a paper on a permanent basis and no change in it was possible except by cutting or over-writing. The items in respect of which these irregularities were found were taken in possession by the Enforcement Officer and recovery memos were prepared by Pratap Singh Kaira at the dictation of the Enforcement Officer and were signed by all the witnesses present. A report of the occurrence was lodged by said Pratap Singh Kaira at the dictation of the Enforcement Officer and was lodged at the police-station. On this report a case was registered against the accused-respondents, after investigations they were prosecuted and have been acquitted as aforesaid. In this case it was alleged that the accused-respondents had committed breach of clauses 3,4,5,8,9 and 10 of the U. P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1971. It was conceded by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that under this Order, prior to its amendment in 1975, by means of Notification No. 15142/XXXIX-AV-2 Ess. Comm. 16-1971 dated February 27, 1975, the shop-keepers of essential commodities were not required to maintain any stock register showing the exact stock of these commodities in their shop. It was, however, urged that under clause 10 of this Order, every wholeseller or retailer was required to maintain account books and 'related records' relating to his business and to produce such records for inspection before the Enforcement Officer]. He contended that 'related records' included a stock register also and under this clause No. 10 it was imperative for these shop-keepers to keep an uptodate and proper stock register. If, however, 'related records' meant a stock register also, then perhaps amendment in the Order would not have been made in 1975 to provide that maintenance of stock registers was also necessary. As against this, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused respondents was that account books in this clause only meant account books relating to cash account and did not Include a stock book. To my mind a Statute has to be read as providing for whatever is specifically stated in it and a statute cannot be read by implications and it cannot be supposed that it means something else. When it is so clearly stated in the statute under this Order It was not provided any where that stock register would be maintained by the dealer of essential commodities and that is why in the year 1975 an amendment in this Order was made and it was provided that stock books shall be maintained. Since stock books were not required to be maintained at time time when these shops were raided, therefore, it would follow that if any difference in the stock as actually found in the shop and as entered in the stock book was found, then no offence under this Order was committed. The main ground on which prosecution was based in these two cases was the basis of difference in the actual stock and the stock as entered in the stock register. But since under none of the clauses of this Order the accused-respondents were required to maintain stock register, therefore, merely because of difference in the stock as maintained in the stock register and as actually found, there could be no prosecution of the accused-respondents. It was urged that in clauses 3 and 4 it was mentioned that in the price- list to be exhibited at a prominent place in the shop price of different clauses and varities of scheduled commodities was to be given, which were held in stock by the shop-keeper. But this does not mean that the amount held in stock by them had also to be shown in the price-list.
(3.) IN respect of breach of Clause 5 there is nothing to indicate that the price of these commodities, which were checked up and seized by the Enforcement Officer had been fixed by the Government and this price had to be shown on the cover or carton of the scheduled commodities. IN fact evidence was given to show that on the wrapper of different kinds of soaps and on the blade the price at which they were to be sold was shown and there was no evidence to show on which particular commodities the price had not been shown or the price of those commodities was controlled. Under Clause 9 of this Order the accused-respondents were to give correct receipt to their customers in which their names and addresses had to be written. The evidence, however, was that names and addresses were not given in some of the receipts because the customers, who purchased these articles refused to disclose their names and on being asked the names and addresses resented it. It was urged by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that if the customers refused to give their names and addresses, then these commodities should not have been sold to them. But clause 8 of the Order clearly provides that the wholeseller or retailer shall not withdraw from sale any scheduled commodity held by him in stock for sale. Under this Clause, therefore, (he statutory obligation on the accused-respondents was not to refuse sale of these articles to their customers. The accused- respondent could not, therefore, say that they were not giving their names and addresses, therefore, they would not sell the articles to them. It was also not shown that the receipts on which names and addresses were not given in respect of scheduled commodities.;