- (1.)THIS is a Government appeal against the acquittal of Lashmi Narain by the Additional District Magistrate, Kheri. The respondent was prosecuted for an offence under sub-rule (9) of Rule 126 of the Defence of India Rules 1962 read with Clause 19 (a) of the U. P. Foodgrains (Control, Requisition and Distribution) Order, 1963, hereinafter referred to as Order, The respondent was found in possession of 106 Quintals 32 K. Gs. and 500 Grans of foodgrains on 26-9-1964 at 7 A. M. This Stock was in excess of the prescribed limit, that is, 100 Quintals and was found stored for over a week. It was further found by the Magistrate who had effected raid that the respondent had kept his stock register wherein the entries were posted only upto 24-9-1964. He was consequently found to have committed breach of the condition of Clause 3 (ii) of the Foodgrains Licence of Form B as granted under the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order. 1964.
(2.)THE respondent had not disputed the recovery but had pleaded that he was not aware of the amended Order.
(3.)THE learned Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the first count placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Udai Narain Singh v. State of U. P. , 1964 AWR (HC) 707. In the said decision it has been held.
"failure on the part of the authorities to make any provision for the mode in which the producers or the dealers were to act in the event of excess quantity of foodgrains remaining with them undisposed of itself constituted 'lawful excuse' within the meaning of that expression in Rule 5 of the Defence of India Rules with the result that mere possession of foodgrains in excess of the permitted quantity after the prescribed date did not amount to contravention of any of the provisions of the order. "