S.D.Singh, J. - (1.) THIS revision and revision No. 608 of 1966 are based on similar facts and the questions of law which have been raised in the two revisions are also the same and I, therefore, propose to deal with both the cases in this judgment.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, Parma Lal, who is applicant in this revision, and Prabhu Nath, who is applicant in Criminal Revision No. 608 of 1966, are dealers in foodgrains. A search of their premises was taken at about 10-30 or 11 a. m. on 26th September, 1964, in the presence of Sri R. K. Dubey, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Phulpur, by the Station Officer of Phulpur Police Station. Several witnesses were also present at the time of the search. Fifteen bags of wheat, weighing 37 maunds, was recovered from the premises in the possession of Panna Lal, and 37 bags containing 92 maunds of wheat from the possession of Prabhu Nath. The wheat found with Panna Lal would be nearabout 15 quintals and that found with Prabhu Nath 37 quintals. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (X of 1955) "if the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein." Under Sub-section (2) Clause (a) of the same section, an order under Sub- section (1) aforesaid may provide for "regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the production or manufacture of any essential commodity. "Under Section 5 of the same Act the powers of the Central Government may be delegated to the State Government. Under the powers so delegated, the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, was promulgated and published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 29th February, 1964. Clause 3 of this order reads: "3. Licensing of Dealers -- (1) No person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority. (2) For the purpose of this clause, any person who stores any foodgrains in quantity of ten quintals or more of any one of the foodgrains or twenty-five quintals, of all foodgrains taken together at any one time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the foodgrains for the purposes of sale." The quantity of wheat found with both the applicants was in excess of the quantity mentioned in Sub- clause (2) of Clause 3 aforesaid and they, therefore, according to the prosecution case, committed a breach of Sub-clause (1) of this Clause 3.
(3.) UNDER Section 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, any person who contravenes an order made under Section 3 shall be liable to be convicted and punished, if the order is one under Clause (h) of Clause (1) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, and in other cases to three years and in either case he shall also be liable to fine. In this particular case the order which is said to have been contravened was one which was passed under Clause (a) of Sub- section (2) of Section 3 and it would, therefore, be the later part of Clause (a) of Section 7(1) which would apply. The two applicants were prosecuted under this provision read with Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, The Magistrate, who tried the two applicants, treated the report submitted by the police as a police report within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 251-A of the Cr. P. C. and tried the two applicants under the aforesaid provision and convicted them under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced each one of them to a fine of Rs. 2,000. The applicants went up in appeal. While their conviction was upheld the fine was reduced by the Sessions Judge, Sri J. P. Chaturvedi, to Rs. 1,000 for no other reason than this that the ends of justice would be met if the fine was reduced to Rs. 1,000. The applicants have now come up in revision against the aforesaid orders.;