- (1.) THIS is an application in revision by the accused Jawahar Mal against his conviction and sentence under sec. 7 of the Indian Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, (Act XXIV of 1946), for the breach of clause 4 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949. The petitioner was convicted as above by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment up to the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and a forfeiture order was also passed in respect of the 350 maunds of Bajra which was found in the petitioner's possession. The learned additional Sessions Judge, Churu, upheld the conviction and sentence in appeal. The present revision has been filed against that judgment.
(2.) THE case for the prosecution is short and simple. It is alleged that Jawaharmal was found to have in his possession at his two shops in Ratangarh 350 maunds of Bajra, and that he held no licence for the purpose. This was said to be in contravention of the provisions of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order which permits possession of grain falling within the purview of that Order up to 50 maunds without a licence. On 22nd October, 1951, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ratangarh, recovered the aforesaid quantity of grain from the petitioner's shops. THE petitioner admitted this recovery. His defence, however, was that he had obtained the Bajra on 19. 10. 1951, and that he had settled the sale of almost the whole quantity to a licensed dealer Sita Ram Purohit and further that he had sold 10 bags to retail dealers. He produced two receipts Ex. D-l and D-2 in lieu of the municipal tax paid by him in respect of the bags of Bajra in question and these receipts are dated 19th October, 1951. THE plea raised by the defence was that the accused was within his rights in storing the stock of Bajra under the provisions of cl. 17 (2) of the Foodgrains Control Order upto the period of a week from the date of such acquisition. This plea was rejected by both the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu. The only ground on which learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged his conviction in this Court is that the courts below had acted illegally in not giving effect to the plea of the defence referred to above that the possession of the accused of 350 bags of Bajra was perfectly legal upto a week from the date on which the petitioner had obtained it, and that the prosecution of the petitioner in such circumstances could not be sustained in law. It may be pointed out that the petitioner received the Bajra on the 19. 10. 1951, and this is not contested by the learned Government Advocate, who appears for the State. It also admits of no controversy that the petitioner was hauled up on the 22nd October, 1951, for his alleged illegal possession of such Bajra. The important question for determination, therefore, is whether the case of the petitioner is covered by clause 17 (2) of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order. The question is not free from difficulty. In order to determine this question, however, we have to closely examine the provisions of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949. Part I of the Order mainly deals with definitions. Part II is headed as "for Dealers". Clause 3 of the Order shows that the provisions of this part shall apply to such persons who deal in food-grains". The relevant portion of clause 4 reads as follows: - " (1) No person shall engage in any undertaking which involves the purchase, sale or storage for sale of any foodgrains except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the Licensing Authority. . . . . . . . . For the purpose of this sub-cl. , any person in possession without valid authority, of foodgrains in quantity exceeding 50 maunds shall be deemed, unless the contrary is proved, to have stored the same for sale. " Clause 5 prescribes the form of a licence, and clause 6 lays down the various purposes for which a licence may be issued. The rest of the clauses in this part then deal with the quantities of food-grains which may be stored by a licensee at any one time for various purposes and certain other matters mainly relating to licensed dealers into which we need not go for our present purposes. Then comes Part III which bears the following heading: "for persons other than dealers. " Clause 16 says that the provisions of Part III shall apply to all persons other than licensed grain dealers. The relevant portion of clause 17 is in the following terms : - " (1) No person, who is not a licensed grain dealer, shall retain in his possession at any one time more than 50 maunds of foodgrains which quantity will cover the requirements of himself, his family and all other purposes including seeds. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-clause (4) all foodgrains in the possession of any person, not being a licensed grain dealer in excess of the scale prescribed under sub-clause (1) above, shall within a month from the date of the publication of this Order in the Gazette or, if possession is acquired subsequent thereto, within a week from the date of such acquisition, be disposed of by such person by sale to a licensed grain dealer at the market rate or in such other manner as may from time to time be prescribed by the Commissioner or the Director. " Part IV deals with certain miscellaneous provisions which admittedly have no relevance to the point for determination before me. From the above resume of the provisions of the Rajasthan Food-grains Control Order, I am of opinion that the intention of the legislature was to divide all those who may possess grain into two broad classes. First, dealers who must obtain a licence from the appropriate Licensing Authority and carry on the purchase, sale or storage of scheduled foodgrains in accordance with the terms of the licence ; and secondly, persons other than such dealers. The intention of the legislature is clear, to my mind, that nobody was to be allowed to carry on business in grain within the meaning of the said Order without a licence. That explains the principle of Clause 4 of the Order. Then Clauses 17 (1) and (2) deal with all persons other than licensed grain dealers, that is to say, all persons other than those who have obtained a licence under the Order. The gist of Clause 17 is that such persons will not ordinarily be allowed to retain in their possession at any one time more than 50 maunds of foodgrains. It is further provided that if such a person had a larger quantity of grain in his possession at the date of the publication of this Order, then he must dispose of the excess grain to a licensed grain dealer within a month of such publication. It was still further provided that if a person other than a licensed dealer came in possession even after the Order came into force, of grain in excess of 50 maunds, then he shall have to dispose of the excess grain within a week from the date of such acquisition. The intention appears to be that all other persons than licensed grain dealers in the event of their coming into possession of grain larger than the quantity of 50 maunds should be allowed the liberty to dispose of excess quantity of grain within a specified period which was prescribed to be a week if possession was acquired subsequent to the period when the Order came into force. It follows, as a necessary corollary, that the possession of a non-licensed grain-holder of more than 50 maunds of grain for a week from the date he obtained possession of such quantities could not be said to be unlawful for she simple reason that such a person was allowed by law to sell it to a licensed graindealer. If this analysis of the provisions of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order be correct, as I think it is, then it cannot be said that the petitioner, in the present case, had committed any offence on 22nd October, 1951, inasmuch as he had acquired the grain, which is under objection, only three days before, that is, on 19th October, 1951. The petitioner pleaded that he had already settled the sale of the grain in dispute with a licensed grain-dealer, but could not give effect to it, because the police in the meantime had taken possession of the grain. Whether that is correct or otherwise, it was indeed open to the accused, as he had still four days for the purpose to dispose of the grain in excess of 50 maunds to a licensed grain-dealer whether wholesale or retail. It may also be pointed out in this connection that the Order contains no definition of the expression "dealer", and that to think of two classes of dealers viz. , 'licensed dealers' and 'unlicensed dealers' as falling within Part II of the Order would be a contradiction in terms. A person to be 'dealer' must necessarily have been a 'licensed dealer' or his case falls within Clauses 16 and 17 of Order. These clauses clearly lay down that all other persons than 'licensed grain-dealers' will be simply "other person" whose cases will fall to be governed by and determined under the provisions of Clause 17 of the Order. It was strenuously contended by learned Government Advocate that Part II deals with the cases of all grain-dealers whether licenced or unlicensed, and that so long as a person was a 'dealer', his case must be dealt with under Part II. This argument is plausible; but is, in my opinion, without much substance. I have already said above that the Order does not define a 'dealer' as contradistinguished from a 'licensed dealer', and further to think of an 'unlicensed dealer' would be a contradiction in terms. Either a. person must be a 'licensed dealer' within Part II or he must be a person other than such dealer which will include all persons other than licensed dealers. Having given my most careful consideration to the provisions of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, I have come to the conclusion that Clause 17 thereof is really an exception to Clause 4, and that the case of the present petitioner being certainly not that of a licensed grain-dealer, must necessarily fall to be determined by the provisions of Clause 17 of the Order, and if it is so considered, then the conclusion is irresistible that, in the circumstances of this case, it could not possibly be premised that the possession of Jawaharmal of over 350 maunds of grain up to a week from the date of his acquisition thereof was in breach of the provisions of the Foodgrains Control Order. Having received the grain on 19th October, 1951 he had the law, on his side, up to 26th October, 1951, and his prosecution for such grain on 22nd October, 1951,, could not be sustained in law. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that the appellant could get the benefit of Clause 17 (2) only when he came into possession of Bajra without contravening any of the provisions of the Foodgrains Control Order, 1949. I am not quite clear as to what the learned Judge meant when he said so. What he probably meant was that so soon as a person had in his possession grain beyond the quantity of 50 maunds, he must have necessarily obtained a licence failing which he would be guilty of violating the provisions of Clause 4 (1) of the Foodgrains Control Order. A cogent and conclusive answer to this mode of reasoning is provided by the fact that if this argument were correct Clause17 (2) would be rendered absolutely nugatory and meaningless. There would be no occasion to give effect to sub-clause (2) of Clause 17 whatsoever because such a person would necessarily have committed a breach of the provisions of Clause 4 and would, on the reasoning of the learned Judge, not entitled to the benefit of Clause 17 of the Order. I am, therefore, satisfied that the interpretation put by the courts below on sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Clause 17 is not correct. Tor these reasons, I allow this revision, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner and acquit him. I further direct that the 350 maunds of grain which was forfeited shall be returned to the petitioner, and if, in the meantime, his grain has been sold, as it might well have been, then the cost of the entire grain be refunded. The fine, if recovered from the petitioner, shall also be refunded to him. .;