J.M.L.Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital, dismissing the appeal that was filed by the present applicant against his conviction and sentence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
(2.) ON 20th of February, 1975, at about 10-30 p.m. a truck bearing No. U. P. S. 6245 carrying 55 bags of Basmati rice was intercepted in village Nakatpura. The applicant, along with three other persons, namely Mohammad Ali, Ahmad Noor and Sarfaraz was sitting in the truck. Neither of them had any licence or permit for the possession of the rice as required by clause 3 of the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). The applicants and his companions were accordingly sent up for their prosecution under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The defence case was that Mohammad Ali, accused, the owner of the truck, on the night in question saw two bullock carts laoded with rice bags, and, on the request of one Ashraf Khan he agreed to load the said bags in his truck for being carried to Sittarganj. Addul Sattar applicant was a man of the aforesaid Ashraf Khan and he took his seat in the truck at the instance of Ashraf Khan. The trial court accepted the prosecution case as correct and rejected defence case. In consequence thereof the trial court convicted the applicant and the other accused persons under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced each of them to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The bansmati rice seized from the truck had been sold during the pendency of the trial, but the sale proceeds were directed to be forfeited. Aggrieved against it the applicant and his companions filed an appeal in the court of Sessions at Nainital. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that no case was made out against Mohammad Ali, Ahmad Noor and Sarfaraz and accordingly set aside their conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found no substance in the appeal in so far as it concerned Abdul Sattar, applicant, and, accordingly, affirmed his conviction. The sentence awarded to him was however, reduced from two year's R. I. to three months' R. I. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower appellate court, the applicant has preferred this revision.
(3.) THE limited question for consideration in the present revision is whether on the prosecution case, as it stood, the applicant could be held guilty of the contravention of clause 3 of the Order punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Clause 3 of the Order reads as under :- "(1) No person shall carry on business as a dealer or Commission Agent 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 tin 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 demeed to be engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of such foodgrains." Reference may also be made at this very place to the definition of the expression 'dealer' occurring in clause 2 (a) of the Order. It reads as follows : ""dealer" means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any one of the foodgrains in quantity of ten quintals or more of all foodgrains taken together, but does not include the Food Corporation of India or a person who (i) stores any food- grains produced by him by personal cultivation ; and (ii) does not engage in the business of purchases or sales of foodgrains." ;