G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THE State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondent accused under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
(2.) THE respondent accused Bhorelal is proprietor of M/s Yadav Oil Company. He was prosecuted for black marketing of kerosene and crude oil, from the period December 21, 1973 to February 26, 1974. There was no factual dispute so far as the rate charged in 33 bills by the accused during this period is concerned. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the Collector did not fix any rate or price during this period and, therefore, there was no offence in charging what the accused thought to be the company rate. In this appeal no one has appeared on behalf of the accused although he is represented by counsel Shri Babulal Purohit. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor Dr. S. S. Bhandawat and perused the record. From the record it appears that the Collector fixed the rate vide Ex. 25 which was issued on December 15, 1973. According to prosecution it came into effect from November 9, 1973.
(3.) I inquired from Dr. Bhandawat learned Public Prosecutor as to what is the date of issue of Ex. 25 because no date is mentioned on that particular document on record. Dr. Bhandawat frankly submitted that since the document fails to mention any date he cannot from his own information or knowledge mention the date Moreover, in this document the dates have been fixed from November 2, 1973 to November 9, 1973. In the grounds of appeal the date of issue of this letter has been mentioned as December 15. 1973. It is surprising that it was issued on December 15, 1973. how so could the dealer know earlier the rate and in the absence of fixation of rate at the relevant date how can the dealer be made liable for charging more. In my opinion, there is also a confusion created by the grounds of appeal in para No. 2 when compared with the record viz. Ex 25 and it is difficult to find out actually when this letter was issued and how the dealer came to know of it and when. In these circumstances the detailed reasons given by the trial court for acquittal of the accused calls for no interference. ;