Abdul Latif Chowdhury vs The State of Assam

Manisana, J.—This revision petition arises from the order dated 27.12.85 passed by the learned Special (Sessions) Judge Cachar in Special Case No. 7 of 1985 convicting the Petitioner u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 200/.

The case of the prosecution is that on 2.3 1985, the godown of the Petitioner was searched by the P.W. 2 Ramen Sahu, Sub-Inspector of F and C Supplies, in presence of the Petitioner. 75 bags of Sali paddy containing approximately 56.75 Qtls. of paddy along with 2 half bags of Sali rice containing approximately 1,00 Qtls. were found stored in the godown of the Petitioner without any licences. The learned special Judge has held that the accused stocked paddy and rice beyond the permissible limit for the purpose of sale at his shop without any dealership licence. Therefore, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has violated the provisions of Clause 3 of the Assam Paddy and Rice Presurement (Levy and Licensing) Order, 1984, for short the "Order", and convicted and sentenced the Petitioner as already stated above.

The relevant provision of Clause 3 of the order runs:

No dealer and rice miller shall engage in any business which involves purchase, sale or storage for sale of paddy and rice except under in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence under this order;

(Emphasis added)

Sub-clause (d) of Clause 3 provides: "Licensed Dealer" means a person holding a valid licence under this Order;

Mr. A.B. Cboudhury, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has not challenged the fact of possession of the paddy and the rice by the Petitioner. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the mere possession of paddy and rice is not sufficient to constitute the offence charged against the Petitioner. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the prosecution has further to show that the Petitioner engaged in any business which involves purchase, sale or storage for sale of paddy and rice, but the prosecution has failed to do so. I am of the view that the submission of the learned Counsel has sufficient force. The Clause 3 shows that the requirement is not that the person should merely sale, purchase or store for sale of paddy and rice, but he must be carrying on such business, of sale or storage. The word "business" means a person who habitually busies of occupies or engages the time, attention, labour, and effort of persons as a principal serious concern or interest or for livelihood or profit (see Black''s Law Dictionary). Therefore a single act or an isolated act would not make a person engaged in a business as "one swallow doesn''t make a summer".

In Manipur Administration Vs. M. Nila Chandra Singh, the Supreme Court has held that the concept of business in the context must necessarily postulates continuity of transactions. It is not single, casual, or solitary transaction of sale or purchase or storage for sale that would constitute business. It is only where it is shown that there is a short of continuity of one or other of the said transaction.

Coming to the present case, the prosecution has not proved all the ingredients of Clause 3 of the Order. The only evidence is that P.W. 2 searched the godown and found the paddy and the rice. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has further to prove that the Petitioner engaged in any business as provided under Clause 3 of the Order.

For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and the sentence of the Petitioner is set a side. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.