R.A.MISRA, J. - (1.) SUNDER Lal Jaiswal, appellant, has been convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorious imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs. 500 and in the default thereof to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month. But instead of requiring him to serve out sentence atonce the learned Special Judge has released him on probation of good conduct for a period of one year and further directed that the confiscated goods shall be for­feited to the State.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution Sri Rajendra Singh (P. W. 1), the Marketing Inspector, raided the premises belonging to the appellant on 19th July, 1983 at about 7 p. m. and found him using the premises for the pur­chase and sale of oilseeds and oilseed products in the name and style of M/s Gayatri Oil Mills, without a licence and thereby contravened clause 4 of the U. P. Oilseeds and Oilseed Products Control Order, 1966. The Inspector seized the articles and gave them in the supurdagi of Raj Kumar after pre­paring a memo (Ex. Ka. 2), He thereafter submitted the report (Ex. Ka. 5) at the Police Station, Qaiserbagh. Sri Ram Saran Partap (P. W. 2) Sub-Inspector, Qaiserbagh Police Station investigated the case and submitted a charge-sheet against the accused on 15-11-1983. The accused pleaded not guilty and pleaded that he applied for a licence under the aforesaid Act in December, 1982 for the year 1983. The licence was issued to him subsequently on 24th December, 1982 any he received it on 1st January, 1983. So he was under the impression that the licence was granted to him for the year 1983 though a reading of the licence revealed that it was for the year 1982. The defence contention appears to be that actually the licence was for the year 1983 but by a clerical mistake '82' was written in the licence instead of '1983'. The learned Judge on a consideration of the entire evidence produced before him, arrived at the conclusion that through the licence was not actually for the year 1983 yet the accused appellant was under a misunderstanding that it was for the year 1983. His bona fides are further exhibited by the fact that when it was stressed that the licence was for the year 1982 and not for the year 1983 then he moved an application in March, 1983 for obtaining a licence for that year. The learned Judge has further concluded that Sunder Lal, the accused appellant, is entitled for the benefit of this misunderstanding. But suprisingly enough instead of giving him the benefit the learned Judge has recorded conviction against him and sentenced him the imprisonment but subsequently released him on probation of good conduct. It is abundantly clear from the findings arrived at by the courts below that there was no means rea on the part of the accused appellant for having used the premises for the purpose of sale and purchase of oilseeds and oilseed products without obtaining a licence. On the other hand the material on record proves that he was working under a bona fide that he had obtained licence for the year 1983. In view of these facts the conviction of the appellant is unfounded and shall be set aside. He is entitled to get the benefit of doubt as observed by the court below himself. The appeal shall, therefore, be allowed and the conviction and sentence as well as the order releasing him on probation shall be set aside.
(3.) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that goods have simply been seized and they have neither been confiscated by the District Magistrate under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act nor have they been confiscated by the court below and that the court below has directed the goods to be forfeited to the State under misconception of fact that the goods have been confiscated. If that be so, the goods shall be returned to the appellant.;