N. C. SHARMA, J. - (1.) UPTO 1967 production, price and distribution of sugar were controlled by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and orders made there-under. Every dealer in sugar was required by the Sugar Dealers Licence Order 1962 to obtain licence for trading in sugar. The licences were required for any person who stored more than 10 quintals of sugar at a time for purpose of sale. The licences were issued annually and they were renewable. In 1971 the Central Government provided for partial decontrol of sugar by which purchasers were required to sell a part of the total production at the price fixed by the Government under Sugar Control Order 1966. The rest of the production could be sold by the -producers in what is called "free market". The Central Government kept free market sugar separate from levy sugar. A dealer was prohibited from selling both levy and free market sugar in order to prevent any abuse. On June 15,1972 the Central Government promulgated Levy Sugar (supply Control) Order 1972. The Order provided for requesting of sugar from producers and for producers to supply the same to such persons or organisation or to such State Government as the Central Government might specify at a price not exceeding the price determined in the Sugar Price (Determination) Order, 1972.
(2.) THIS is a revision by Manoharsingh and Sobhalal against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated December 6, 1980, where-by the two petitioners were found to have contravened certain conditions of the licence issued in favour of petitioner No. 1 under the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Sugar Dealers Licensing Order 1967 and consequently held guilty for the offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. By a licence dated October 4, 1972, the petitioner No. 1 was authorised to purchase, sell, or storage of sugar for sale of levy sugar, in Panchayat Circle Amadla, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara, subject to the provisions of the Rajasthan Sugar Dealer's Licensing Order 1967 and to the conditions of licence Ex. P. 7 and to the directions contained in the identity card Ex. P. 8. The licence issued renewed in favour of petitioner No. 1 upto March 31,1975. Shri Harish Chandra Sarswat PW 1 Enforcement Inspector, Mandal inspected and checked the shop of petitioner No. 1 at village Amadla where he used to sell the levy sugar to consumers at fair price on the basis of ration-cards. This inspection was made on January 20,1975. Shri Harish Chandra Sarswat found price rate of sugar which was to be sold to the consumers was not exhibited at the shop of petitioner No. 1 and thus there was contravention of the Rajasthan Essential Commodities Price and Stock Exhibition) Order, 1966. He further found that while 995 Kgs 800 Grams sugar was shown as stock balance on January 20, 1975 at page 40 of Sales Register Art. 1, but as a matter of fact, only 420 Kgs. Sugar was found at the fair price shop in village AMADLA. Five bags of sugar weighing 5 quintals were found at a different shop in another village Kareda. This shop in village Kareda belonged to Mangilal Bhanwarlal and was under the control of Sobhalal petitioner No. 2. At the shop in village Kareda, business of purchase and sale of food-grains was carried on. A checking memo Ex. P. 2 was prepared by the Enforcement Inspector in the presence of petitioner No. 2. Five bags of sugar weighing 5 quintals were seized from the shop in village Kareda under the seizure memo Ex. P. 2 and was handed over to Roshanlal on 'supardginama'. Stocking checking report at the shop in village Amadla was prepared which is Ex. P. 4, on the record. It appears from Ex P. 5 and Ex. P. 6 that 16 bags of levy sugar were handed over to petitioner No. 1 through petitioner No. 2 for distribution at fair price shop in village Amadla on January 15, 1975. Ex. P. 7 is the licence issued in favour of petitioner No. 1! in respect of the fair price shop at Amadla and Ex. P. 8 is the identity cards given to petitioner No. 1. It was further found by the Enforcement Inspector that althougbone month sugar entitlement was sold by the petitioners to the ration card-holders in Panchayat circle Amadla, but in the Sales register sale of 2 months sugar entitlement was shown and thus fictitious entries regarding the sale of levy sugar were made in the Sales register Art. 1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara by his judgment dated November 8, 1979 found the petitioners guilty of all the three charges framed against them and he sentenced each of the two petitioners to three months' rigorous imprisonment for the three charges and to a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the petitioners were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 1979 before the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The Sessions Judge held that the Price List Exhibition Rules 1966 came into force in December 1966 and at that time sugar was not included in the list. The item of sugar was inserted after Japuary 20, 1975. He, therefore, held that no offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 was committed by the petitioners on account of non-exhibition of the sale price rate at the fair price shop in village Amadla. However, the Sessions Judge agreed with the findings of the trial court that when the Enforcement Inspector inspected the fair price shop and made physical verification of the levy sugar stock, only 420 Kgs. sugar was found at the shop while the stoek shown in the Sales register was 995 Kgs. 800 Grams. He also agreed with the findings that more than 5 quintals sugar was found less in stock at the fair price shop in village Amadla of the petitioner No. 1. Five quintals sugar were found at a different shops in village Kareda. The Sessions Judge further agreed with the findings of the trial court that while sugar of one month entitlement was sold to the ration-card-holders but fictitious entries representing sale of 2 months sugar entitlement was made in the Sales register Art, 1. For these two contraventions, the Sessions Judge found the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. With regard to the sentences the Sessions Judge Bhilwara held that the petitioner No. 1, who was licensee for the sale of levy sugar in Amadla Panchayat circle was not present at that time at the shop. Petitioner No. 2 was looking-after this ration shop on behalf of petitioner No. . 1, and, therefore, he was more responsible for the offence. The Sessions Judge, therefore, reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioner No. 1 to 15 days' simple imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner No. 1 was to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. So far as "petitioner No. 2 is concerned, the Sessions Judge maintained the sentence awarded to him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the Central Government, by promulgating the Sugar (Control) Order 1966, had exercised its whole power under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 in regard to sugar and, therefore, no scope or room was left with the State Government to make any Order, Regulation or provision in respect of sugar. The State Government, it was urged, was not competent to make any provision in regard to the exhibition of the price of sugar or to issue any directions relating to maintenance of stock and distributing of sugar. Reliance in this connection was placed upon the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Sitaram & Sons Vs. State of Rajasthan (1 ). Sitaram's case dealt with the validity of the Rajasthan (Display of Price and Stocks of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966. The item was iron and steel. The Central Government had promulgated Iron and steel (Control) Order 1956. It was contended that in case that the Central Government by promulgating the Iron and Steel (Control) Order had exercised its whole power under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in regard to the iron and steel and, therefore, no scope or room was left with the State Government to make any Regulation, Order of Provision in resptct of iron and steel. It was urged that the provisions as to display of list of prices under clause (3) of the Rajasthan Order and so also the provisions regarding the purchase and sale thereof were inconsistent with the provisions of the Iron and Steel Control Order and as such were illegal. It may be mentioned that the Central Government had promulgated the Iron and Steel (Control) Order 1956 which contained provisions for the regulation and maintenance of the price and distribution of iron and steel and their availability at fair price and also dealt with various matters in regard to acquisition, disposal, distribution of such articles, fixation of the price and other ancillary matters governing the sale and purchase of the iron and steel and regulating their distribution and also maintaining the increa-sed supply and fair distribution thereof amongst the consumer. Some of the important provisions of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order 1956 were that clause (4) of the Order provided for a quota certificate of permit to acquire any iron and steel. Clause (5) made provision for special or general Order of the Control for disposal of iron and steel. Clause (7) provided that iron and steel acquired under clause (4) was not to be used except and in accordance with the conditions subject to which it was acquired. Clause (8) enjoining upon the person disposing of iron and steel to obtain from the acquirer the authority under which it was disposed of. Clause (10) conferred powers on the controller to issue directions for sale. Clause (11) prohibited removal of those goods without permission from the controller and clause (12) empowered the controller to required dealers to maintain such books, accounts and records as he might deem necessary and to call for their production and filing of returns. Clause (13) dealt with the powers of the controller to issue directions in the matter of production. Sub clause (1) of clause (14) empowered the controller to issue directions to maintain and exhibit a list of godowns in which the iron and steel was stocked. Sub-clause (4) of clause (14) conferred residuary powers to issue general directions and clause (15) empowered him to fix prices. There were many other provisions in regard to the disposal and acquisition of iron or scrap and also ancillary miscellaneous provisions. In this background, it was held by this Court in Sitaram's case (supra that the Iron and Steel (Control) Order 1956 contained an exhaustive Code in regard to the matters specified in sub-clause (1) of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and, therefore, there could be no scope left to the State Government to legislate on the matters which were already covered by the provisions of Iron and Steel, (Control), Order 1966. The decision in Sitaram's case would not apply to the facts of the present case. It is true that the Central Government had in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 made the Sugar (Control) Order 1966 ). The scope of this order was limited. Under the Sugar (Control) Order 1966 the Central Government could direct that no sugar can be manufactured from sugar cane except under and in accordance with the conditions specified in a licence issued in this behalf. Clause (3) of the Order related to manufacturer of sugar. Clause (4) imposes a restraint on the producer of the sugar on its sale or delivery except under and in accordance with a direction issued by the Central Government. Clause (5) of the Order provided that the Central Government may by general or special order issued to any producer or recognised dealer, or any class of producers or recognised dealers, such directions regarding the production, maintenance of stocks, storage sale, trading, packing, marking vehement disposal delivery and distribution of any kind of sugar as it might deem fit. The expression "recognised dealer" in clause. (5), 5 (a), (10), (11), (12) and (14) of the order are very permanent. The expression "recognised dealer" has been defined in section 2 (c) of the Order as meaning a person carrying on the business of purchasing, selling or distribu-ting sugar and licence under the Order relating to licensing of sugar for the time being in force in State or Union territory. The expression "bulk consumer" has been defined in section 2 (c) as meaning "halwai, sweet-meat seller or confectioner. It has to be remembered that in 1971 the Central Government had provided for partial decontrol of sugar by which producers were required to sell a part of the total production at the price fixed by the Central Government under the Sugar (Control) Order 1966. The rest of the production could be sold by the producers in free market. Thus the Central Government kept free market sugar separate from levy sugar. On June 15, 1972 the Central Government promulgated Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order 1972. Under clause (2) of the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1972 the Central Government could by order issue directions to any producer or recognised dealer to supply levy sugar of such type or grade and in such quantity (a) to such persons or organisations in such areas or markets; (b) to such State Government, as may be specified in the order and at a price not exceeding the price determined, under sub-section (3-C) of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Levy sugar meant the sugar requisitioned by the Central Government under clause " (f) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. Subclause (1) (a) of clause (2) empowered the Central Government to delegate its powers to issue any directions under sub-clause (1) also to the officers in the Directorate of Sugar and Vanaspati as specified therein. Sub-clause (3) of clause (2) of the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order 1972 expressly provided that any levy sugar taken delivery of under sub-clause (2) may be stored, distributed or sold - (a) Where such sugar has been takn delivery of by "the State Government, in such manner as the State Government deems fit; (b) in any other case, in accordance with such directions as may be issued by the State Government or by an officer or Authority empowered by the State Government in this behalf. The instant case is of levy sugar. The levy sugar was taken delivery of by the State Government and was being distributed to the fair price shop-dealers through Mandal Kriya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Limited. For this purpose the Rajasthan State Government had issued the Rajasthan Sugar Dealers (Licensing) Order "1967. The petitioner No. 1 was licensed under this Order for sale of levy sugar. Levy sugar meant sugar produced by the Central Government from the sugar factories and meant for and release to the State for sale or distribution at price specified by the State Government or the Collector from time to time and based on the levy price at which sugar was secured from sugar factories. "licensing Authority" meant the Collector or any other Officers appointed by the State Government to exercise the duty and powers and to perform the function of Licensing Authority under the Order. Clause (14) of the Order empowers the State Government or the Licensing Authority to issue directions to the licensees with regard to, the purchase of sugar, the sale of sugar in any quantity by him, the storage of sugar for sale by him, the disposal, of sugar purchased by him, the disposal of sugar stored by him and the exhibition of price list of sugar and with regard to the manner in which such list may be exhibited. By clause (9) it was provided that no holder of a licence under the order shall contravene any of the terms and conditions of the licence. The case of the petitioner is thus clearly not governed at all by the Sugar (Control) Order 1966. It is governed by the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1972, where under express provision has been made in sub-clause (3) of clause (2) of the Order that the levy sugar will be stored, distributed or sold in such manner as the State Govt. deems fit. Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1972 is thus not a self-contained and exhaustive Code like the Iron and Steel (Control)Order, Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1972 empowers the State Govt. to store, distribute and sell such sugar in such manner as it deems fit. The provisions of the Rajasthan Sugar Dealers Licencing Order, 1967, are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1972, The Central Government had only retained wish it the power to direct any producer or recognised dealer to supply levy sugar in such quantity to such persons or organisation or to such State Government as may be specified in the Order. The function of the Central Government is, therefore, over and the levy sugar as after delivery to the State Government has to be stored, distributed or sold by the licensee in such manner as the State Government may deem fit.
(3.) THE Rajasthan (Display of Price of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966 was promulgated on August 19, 1966 and in the Schedule annexed thereto, sugar was not included. It was by an amendment made on July 2, 1975 that sugar was included in the said order. In the instant case, the fair price shop of petitioner No. 1 was inspected by the Enforcement Inspector on January 20, 1975. Up to that date sugar was not included in the Schedule appended to the said order. THE Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, therefore, rightly acquitted the petitioners in relation to the alleged contravention of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan (Display of Price of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966. It has already been held that the Rajasthan State Government was competent to issue the Rajasthan Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 and the licensee was bound to comply with the directions of the Collector. It is specifically mentioned in the identity card Ex. P. 8 issued to the petitioner No. 1 that licensee after receiving the sugar will take the sugar and unload it at the place mentioned in the licence and not at any other place. In case it becomes necessary to unload the sugar for any reason at any other place the licensee is bound to inform the District Supply Officer and the Tehsildar about it. The licensee is also required to maintain stock register and Sales register in prescribed form. It has been found concurrently by both the courts below that five quintals sugar which was delivered to petitioner No. 1 through petitioner No. 2 for public distribution on the basis of ration cards was not unloaded by him at the fair price shop in village Anadla but was unloaded in a different village Kareda and at a different shop which was not the shop or premises or godown mentioned in the licence. Similarly a bare look at the Sales register Art. 1 in its entries from pages Nos. 1 to 9 that in every entry relating to ward and number of persons in ration cards, there is interpolation. All entries relating to number of members and quantity of sugar supply have ever - writing. This makes it abundantly clear that petitioners entered more sugar in the sales register Art. 1 than what was actually sold to the ration-card holders. The petitioners were, therefore, rightly held guilty for contravention of the conditions of the licence issued in favour of petitioner No. 1 and the directions of the Collector contained in the identity card Ex. P. 8. and thus for these contraventions, they were rightly convicted for the offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly contended that the offence was committed on January 20, 1975 and after a lapse of more than 13 years it would be harsh to send the petitioners to Jail. It may be mentioned that the offence was committed on January 20. 1975 The criminal complaint against the petitioners was made on September, 4, 1975. The trial Court gave its judgement on November 8, 1979. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge which was decided on December 6, 1980. The present revision was filed by the petitioners in this Court on December 8, 1980 and suspension of sentence was obtained on December 9, 1980. This revision came up for hearing before this Court for the first time on July 27, 1988 after its admission on December 9, 1980. Thus for about 7-1/2 years this revision remained pending in this Court. No doubt it is not happy state of affairs that criminal revisions come up for hearing after 7-1/2 years, but it also cannot be ignored that dealers are given licence for distribution of levy sugar at fair price to consumers and not. for purpose of black marketing-Under the Essential Commodities Act the legislature has declared its decision that essential commodites shall be distributed and made available at fair price. The interest of general public commotes the interest of the consu-ming public and not the interest of the dealers. It is this sort of malafide activities and tendency amongst the fair price shop dealers of diverting the stock of essential commodites delivered to them for public distribution to other channels and to sell such essential coram dities in black market to earn exhorbitant profit and to achieve that object even go to the extent of making fictitious and fabricated entries in the sales register that has cracked and might collapse our entire public distribution system. It is a socio-economic crime and if perpetrators of such crime are shown clemancy, the very object enshrinbed in section 3 of he Essential Commodities Act, 1955 will be frustrated. No leniency or clemancy can be shown to such socio-economic offenders simply on the ground that revision remained pending in this Court for 7-1/2 years. Leniency on this account only encourages these anti-social and anti-national elements to enter into black-marketing of essential commodities to the detriment of the poor consumers to whom only 400 grams of sugar per head at fair price is distributed in a month. The ambition of the Father of the Nation was to wipe every tear from every eye and as rightly said by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer (retired) of the Supreme Court : - "and yet, decades after freedom and party manifestoes, legislative exercise and hierarchy of employees men and Mother-earth are in the grip of basic wants" I, therefore, do not find any adequate reason to reduce the sentences awarded to the petitioners by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. This revision has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed. ;