M.L.SHRIMAL, J. - (1.) ON January 7, 1974 Balu (P.W. 1) went to Pannalal, Agriculture Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Asind and asked him to supply urea fertilizer. Pannalal showed his inability for want of stock, at which Balu in a. taunting language said that it was available in the market at black market rates, which made Pannalal to give him a hundred rupee currency note initialled by him. He asked Balu to purchase urea fertilizer available from the market and report back to him Balu in the company of Magna went to the accused -petitioner Fatehlal, who offered to sell fertilizer at the rate of Rs. 78/ - per 'katta'. The real to purchase seven 'kattas' of fertilizer at the rate of Rs. 78/ - each was settled. Balu paid a currency note of Rs. 100/ -to the accused, took delivery of one 'katta', assuring him that he would return to have the remaining 'kattas' when he would pay the balance. Thereafter Balu reported it to Pannalal. First information report Ex P. 1 regarding this transaction was lodged at the Police Station, Asind It bears the signatures of Balu, Pannalal and Magna. The Police after registering the case searched the house of the accused, recovered eight 'kattas' full of urea fertilizer and four empty bags of urea fertilizer. The marked currency note was also recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner. After usual investigation the Police submitted a challan against the accused under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act in Court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The statements of Balu and Magna corroborated by the first information report, recovery of the initialled currency note and the statement of Pannalal convinced the learned Magistrate that the accused and offered for sale seven 'kattas' of fertilizer at a price exceeding the maximum price fixed under Clause (3) by the Central Government. He further held that the accused sold one 'katta' of fertilizer to Balu at the rate of Rs. 78/ - per katta', and the accused did not possess a certificate of registration required under Rule 5 of the Fertilizer Control Order. 1957. On the basis of the above findings the learned Magistrate held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to three months' simple imprisonment and a. fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of the payment of which to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month
(2.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated July 30, 1976 the accused went in appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge after reappraisal of the evidence, affirmed the findings arrived at by the trial court and came to the conclusion that the accused was a dealer, who had no certificate of registration and he offered for sale and sold urea fertilizer at a rate higher than that fixed i.e. at the rate of Rs. 78/ - per 'katta' whereas the rate fixed was Rs. 55.13 paisa per 'katta'. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court were upheld. Hence this revision petition. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused -petitioner has urged that this sale was a casual transaction by the accused -petitioner to Balu and one transaction is not sufficient to hold that the accused was a dealer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has frankly conceded that this point was not raised before the two courts below. The question whether the accused was a regular dealer in fertilizers or merely a casual seller is a question of fact. If during the course of trial some questions would have been put to Balu, Magna or other prosecution witnesses in cross -examination challenging the fact that the accused was a dealer and was doing the business of selling fertilizers then the prosecution could have examined further evidence to prove 'that the accused used to deal in fertilizers. It appears that the accused felt satisfied knowing his position fully well that this port was not challengeable before the trial court. It was not contested before the appellate court that the appellant was a dealer so much so that even in the memo of revision petition filed before this Court this points has not been raised In such circumstances this point cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. Apart 'from that from the evidence on record it has been proved that the accused first demanded Rs. 80/ - per 'katta' but after some higgling agreed to sell it at the rate of Rs. 78/ per 'katta' and accepted a hundred rupee currency note against the transaction of sale of seven 'kattas' of urea fertilizer. Against a currency note of Rs. 100/ - one 'katta' was delivered to Balu. For the rest of the bags it was settled that Balu would bring a can to take the remaining six 'kattas'. It has also been proved that in the search eight bags full of urea fertilizer were recovered from the possession of the accused and four empty bags of fertilizer were also found. All these facts considered in conjunction with presumption allowed to be raised under Section 14 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are sufficient to hold that the petitioner was a dealer in fertilizer.
(3.) THE next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the first information report the averment is only regarding making an offer to sell urea fertilizer and not regarding the actual sale of one 'katta' of urea. As such prosecution case is false. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned Counsel. No doubt it would have been much better if the details would have been mentioned in the first information report, but the first information report is not the last word of the prosecution. The main purpose of the first information report is to move the criminal law in motion. Good and reliable evidence led in the case and relied upon by the two courts after careful scrutiny cannot be discarded simply because the first information report is not a detailed one or has not been as artistically drafted as the learned Counsel wished it to be.;