Bala Bux and Another vs Emperor

Varma, J.—These three applications have been heard together. The petitioners have been convicted under various provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Sugar Cane Rules, 1934. Petitioner Bala Bux, as the purchasing agent of a sugar concern, has been convicted under Rules 15(d), 15 (e) and 15(f). Under Rule 15(d) he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150 in default to undergo two months'' simple imprisonment. Under Rules 15(e) and 15(f) he has been sentenced on each of the two counts to pay a fine of Rs. 75, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The other petitioner, Ramswarath Ram, who happened to be the weighment-clerk under Bala Bux, the purchasing agent, has been convicted of offences under Rules 15(e) and 15(f) and on each of the two counts has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 37-8-0, in default to undergo one month''s simple imprisonment.

The incident which led to the prosecution, as stated in the judgment of the trial Court, is briefly this: It appears that the petitioner Bala Bux was a purchasing agent for the Guraru Sugar Mill in Gaya and at their way-bridge at Jamooana railway station petitioner Ramswarath Ram worked as a weighment-clerk under Bala Bux. On 27th April 1937, the sugarcane inspector paid a surprise visit to the way-bridge at 9 A.M. He called upon one of the loaded carts, which was covered by receipt No. 52260, to be reweighed and found that while according to the receipt there were only 23 maunds 20 seers of cane in it, in fact it had a load of 24 maunds 30 seers; and he also noticed that the Carbon-duplicate of the receipt showed that the cart contained 24 maunds of cane. The inspector immediately examined the weighment-clerk Ramswarath Ram and had his statement recorded. Later on he sent a report to the District Magistrate of Gaya. That report was dealt with by the District Magistrate on 10th May 1937 when he sanctioned the prosecution of the present petitioners. The two persons were accordingly tried and convicted as already stated.

Mr. Rajkishore Prasad, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues that Rule 15(d) of the Rules relates to an infringement of Rule 11, and in the present instance for failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 11, Bala Bux the purchasing agent should not have been made liable. Rule 11 provides that the manager or purchasing agent, as the case may be, shall cause to be maintained and any person made responsible by the manager or purchasing agent in this behalf shall duly maintain clear and accurate records of all purchases made on his behalf: and the rule further lays down the particulars in regard to which such records are to be maintained. Under Clause (3) of the rule such records shall be available for inspection to an inspector whenever required by him.

The learned advocate contends that the records were to be maintained by the weighment-clerk, and if the weighment-clerk failed to do so he alone should be held liable and not the purchasing agent, Bala Bux, and further that since the weighment clerk has not been prosecuted under Rule 15(d) there was no reason to prosecute and convict Bala Bux under that rule. Rule 15 however distinctly makes the purchasing agent similarly liable if it is found that the person acting on his behalf is guilty and it has not been shown that the purchasing agent had used all due diligence to enforce the observance of the rules and that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent.

In this case, all that the purchasing agent has said is that he was not present at the time of the incident, and he also said that he never used to go to the weighment-clerk who used to remain at the way-bridge. That will go to show that the purchasing agent Bala Bux could not be absolved of the responsibility cast on him by Rule 15.

It is argued that the provisions of Rule 20 have not been complied with; but as I have already said, a report was sent by the inspector to the District Magistrate who sanctioned the prosecution as required by Rule 20 and at the same time took cognizance of the offence u/s 190(1) and directed an examination of the inspector u/s 200(aa), Criminal P.C. It cannot therefore be said that the provisions of Rule 20 have not been properly complied with. It is then contended that the inspector should not have been examined on commission, and my attention has been drawn to the provisions of Sections 503 and 506, Criminal P.C. What appears however to be the real state of affairs is that the inspector who had submitted the report was transferred to some other station and in order to get his evidence expeditiously a commission was issued. No objection appears to have been taken against this step and in the circumstances of the case the objection cannot be heard for the first time in revision.

Of course, it is desirable that the witness on whose statement the accused is likely to be convicted should be examined in the presence of the accused so that the latter may get a chance of cross-examining him and the Court may also have a chance of noticing the demeanour of the witness; but to say that in no case a commission should be issued for the examination of a witness would be to delete the provisions of Sections 503 and 506, Criminal P.C.

As regards the convictions under Rules 15(e) and 15(f), some attempt has been made to find fault with the procedure followed in the trial Court; but, I do not see any reason to interfere with the convictions under these rules either. These rules have been made with the object of protecting the cultivators who are not always educated from the wiles of persons dealing with them on behalf of the purchasing agent and that is why we find in Rule 15 that along with the person acting on his behalf he himself has been made liable unless he shows that he was not negligent in his duties under the rule. Such cases are not likely to be detected easily and when once a case is detected it should not be dealt with leniently.

I would therefore discharge the rule issued in these cases. I should however like to add that the lower Appellate Court ought to have before dismissing the appeal summarily given indications that he had actually considered the various aspects of the cases before him so that in revision this Court could know that the appeal was fully considered. If the lower Appellate Court had only given in short its reasons for the conclusion, these applications perhaps would not have been admitted at all, or, at any rate, much less time) would have been taken than what has actually been occupied for the hearing.