M.H.BEG, J. - (1.)THE applicant has been prosecuted on a charge framed as follows: That, you on or about the 12th day of November, 1963, at 9 -30 a.m. in Kaptanganj town within police circle Maharajganj were found in possession of four bags of sugar for which you had no permit granted by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, and, thereby, contravened the provisions of Section 6 of the U.P. Sugarcane Control Order, 1963, punishable under Clause 9 of Section 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, within my cognizance. It is alleged that the applicant was found transporting 203, Kgs. of sugar on the 12th November, 1963, at about 9 -30 a.m. in Kaptanganj town in the District of Azamgarh. The driver of the Ekka, on which the sugar was being transported, and the applicant, who had engaged the Ekka were prosecuted, as the sugar was in excess of one quintal which a person could possess without a permit granted by the District Magistrate. A first class Magistrate of Azamgarh not only convicted the applicant of an offence punishable under Clause (9) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1982, for contravening Section 6 of the U.P. Sugar (Control) Order, 1963, and sentenced him to one year's R.I., but he also ordered the forfeiture of the sugar to the Government and had it sold. The applicant appealed but the learned Sessions Judge of Azamgarh dismissed his appeal. Hence, he has come up with a revision application to this Court.
(2.)THE fact that the amount of sugar was seized from the possession of the applicant is admitted by him. The trial Court held that the applicant 'is a bulk consumer who runs his sweet -meat shop'. The applicant also proved that he had obtained two permits for sugar and he alleged that he had purchased the sugar on those permits. The trial Court held that the applicant 'could not afford to have kept the sugar stock taken on the valid cards idle for such a long time', and, therefore, held that it was not the same sugar. No exhibit number seems to have been put on the applicant's permits by inadvertence. Both the Courts below have, however, referred, to these permits, one of which is for 50 kgs. and stands in the name of the applicant's brother, and the other is for 100 kgs. granted to the applicant. Both these permits show that the applicants for the permits were sweat -meat vendors. The applicant also produced Nisar Ahmad Zaidi (P.W. 4), the Head Clerk of the Supply Department, Azamgarh, to prove that, on 19.10.1963, the two permits were given to the applicant and his brother, it was also admitted by Nisar Ahmad Zaidi that enhanced quantities of sugar could be drawn for Dasehra, but the actual enhanced amount was not mentioned by him. This was the reason why the applicant filed an application under Section 428, Criminal P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, at the appellate stage, for recalling Nisar Ahmad Zaidi in order to prove the enhanced quanity which could be drawn on the permits, it was alleged in the application that the defence counsel had forgotten to put an important question to this defence witness. The appellate Court rejected this application.
The trying Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge held that the amount of sugar which was being carried and seized was not proved to have been covered by the permits which were shown to have been obtained by the applicant and his brother. Both the courts below proceeded on the assumption that the exact quantity recovered must always be traced to a particular permit or permits before the possession could be deemed to be legal. They seem to have misunderstood the provisions of Section 6 of the U.P. Sugar (Control) Order, 1963, which runs as follows: 6. Possession of sugar stocks - No person, other than a producer, a recognised dealer, an authorised retailer or a bulk consumer shall, except on a permit granted by the District Magistrate, possess more than one quintal of sugar at a time.

(3.)IT is evident, from a perusal of Section 6 of the above mentioned Control Order that possession of sugar without permit exceeding one quintal at a time is an offence for every person 'other than a producer, a recognised dealer, an authorised retailer or a bulk consumer.' The term 'bulk consumer' is defined in the Control Order as follows: 2(b) 'bulk consumer' means a person, other than a recognised dealer or authorised retailer, to whom a recognised dealer sells sugar at whole -sale rate for consumption in his own establishment or undertaking for purpose of processing any food -stuff. It was proved, on behalf of the applicant, that one bag of sugar was purchased from a recognised dealer, Messrs. Haji Mohd. Abdul Rahman, on 19th of October, 1983, for Rs. 117 -28 P., and a receipt (Ex. Kha. 1) was produced to prove this purchase. Hari Prasad (D.W. 3), proprietor of Messrs. Deo Kumar Rai Kumar, another recognised dealer, was produced to prove that another bag of sugar was purchased from his shop for Rs. 117.29 P. on 21st October, 1963, and the receipt given for this purchase was Ex. Kha. 2. As the applicant is a sweetmeat seller, the purpose of the purchase by him could be presumed to be what he asserted it to be, and this was to earn his living by preparing and selling sweets. No other purpose of the applicant for possessing so much sugar was proved by anything on record. The price paid also appears to be at the whole sale rate. The propriety of these purchases was not challenged by the prosecution.