Chhagan and another vs State

S.B. Sen, J.

This is a criminal revision against conviction of the applicant u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order, 1959.

Both the applicants were found to be transporting in bullock carts, food-graing weighing more than 10 maunds from village Rupkheda to village Sotiya Kalian, a village just 5 miles away from the Border of Bombay State. Both these villages have been found to be within the border area as defined in Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order, 1959. There is Oral and documentary evidence in this respect and the applicants have also admitted before the trying Magistrate that the grains were being taken from Rupkheda to Sotiya Kalian.

The trying Magistrate convicted the applicants and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 200. The appellate Court upheld the conviction as well as the sentence. The applicants have now come up in revision. At the time of argument they did not appear. I therefore heard the learned Government Advocate.

The defense of the applicants amongst other things, was that they were taking the grains to a village market and as such they come under the proviso to Section 3 which exempts from punishment the transport of foodgrains from a village in the border area to the nearest grain market (Mandi) in the State of Madhya Pradesh whether such market is within or outside the border area.

About the fact that the two applicants were transporting the foodgrains from Rupkheda to village Sotiya Kalian, there is ample evidence. That was never challenged in the trial Court and there is clinching evidence in this connection. The only point for consideration is whether they were carrying the grains to a Mandi as contemplated in proviso to Clause 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Food-grains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order, 1959.

Market (Mandi) has not been defined in the Madhya Pradesh Food Grains Order, 1959. When the Legislature exempted transport of foodgrains to the market it should have taken pains to define the same. In the absence of such a definition we have to take the common meaning of the word. In the Oxford Universal Dictionary illustrated, 3rd Edi., Vol. 1 the meaning of the word given is "The meeting together of people for the purchase and sale of provisions or live stock, publicly exposed, at a fixed time and place, which also means an open place or covered building in which cattle, provisions etc. are exposed for sale." In Chamber''s Twentieth Century Dictionary, New mid-century version, market is defined as under:

A periodic concourse of people for the purpose of buying and selling, a building square or other public place used for such meetings, a shop, a region in which there is a demand for goods; buying and selling, demand, state of being on sale; bargain, sale, rate of sale, value, to deal at a market.

It has come out in evidence which has been accepted by the Courts below that the applicants were carrying grains to one of the shops for the purpose of sale. There is also evidence to the effect that there are two shops at village Sotiya Kalian where foodgrains are sold.

The learned Government Advocate contended that only, two shops cannot constitute a market. There should be a number of shops and assemblage of number of persons. I am afraid the dictionary meaning which I have already quoted does not place such a restriction.

According to Osborn''s the Concise Law Dictionary, 4th Edi., "In the City of London every weekday is market day and every shop is a market overt (open market)". According to Black''s Law Dictionary, 4th Edi., market means "a place of commercial activity in which articles are bought and sold."

The only question therefore is whether people gather at that particular place for the purchase and sale of foodgrains. There might be two shops, and the market may be small. There is no limit to the number of shops. In my opinion only one shop where sale and purchase of grains take place can also be called a market. What we have to see in order to find whether there is a market or not is whether it is a place where people gather for purchase and sale. The village might be a small village and may not be a big market where number of grain shops exist. Two grains shops may be sufficient to constitute a market.

I cannot agree with the appellate Court when it says "a grain shop does not constitute grain-market, nor a shop which deals in grain with the agriculturists became a grain-market." It is found by the Courts below that the applicants were carrying foodgrains to the village Sotiya Kalian where there were, two shops dealing in foodgrains. If that is the position the applicants clearly come under the proviso to Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order, 1959. They are therefore entitled to an acquittal.

The result is the revision petition is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed against the applicants are set aside and they are acquitted. Fine, if paid be refunded to them. The order regarding confiscation of foodgrains is, also set aside. If the grains have been sold, the price may be paid to the applicants.