JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE respondent was tried and prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Committees Act,. 1955. It was alleged that he had stored 89 quintals of rice without a valid licence. Thus, he was liable to be punished.
(2.) THE trial Court has found that "there is no evidence on the file that the accused was indulging in the sale and purchase of Basmati rice in black market". Thus, the respondent has been acquitted. The State of Punjab challenges the order. Mr. M.C. Berry, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, contends that under the provisions of the Control Order, the storage itself is a culpable Act. It is so ? The Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1978 defines a dealer to mean "a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any one of the foodgrains in quantity mentioned against each in Schedule I or more at any one time...". A perusal of the provision clearly shows that mere storage does not make a person a dealer. It must be proved that the 'storage is for sale.' Mr. Berry concedes that there is no evidence on the record which may indicate that the respondent had stored rice for sale. In fact the counsel has very clearly referred to the statement of PW-1 who admitted that he had not tried to verify the factual position.
(3.) IN view of the above, the view taken by the trial Court is in conformity with law. It calls for no interference. Delay in refiling is condoned. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.;