In Re: Sarapalli Chenchu Raghavalu Chetty

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.—The petitioner in all these petitions is the same person and he has been co�nvicted for offences punishable under

Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules read with Clause (3) of the Food Grains Control Order and condition No. 6 embodied in the licence

granted to him. He is a wholesale dealer in rice in George Town and holds a licence under the Food Grains Control Order. He was tried along

with his son, the second accused, and the charge was that he sold rice to various persons without showing in the receipts or in the duplicates

maintained by him the name, address and the licence number of the purchaser. The seven cases out of which these revision petitions arise are all

cases'' in which he had been charged with similar offences and in all these cases he pleaded guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to three

months'' rigorous imprisonment.

It is urged before me that all that he admitted was that he did not note in the receipts the names, addresses and the licence numbers of the

purchasers in respect of these various sales which are the subject-matter of these cases and that he was ignorant and should not therefore be!

understood to have pleaded guilty. The petitioner''s case is that the omission to note these facts in the receipts and in the duplicates maintained by

him would not constitute an offence, his contention being that failure to note these facts is only a breach of a condition in the licence and therefore

cannot amount to a disobedience of an order issued under the rules and consequently he should not be found guilty of having committed offences

punishable under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules. Rule 81(4) runs thus:

If any person contravenes any order made under this rule, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or

with fine or with both.

Food Grains Control Order, published in the Gazette of India, dated 21st May, 1942, is an order issued under the Defence of India Rules.

Under Clause (3) of that notification, no person shall engage in any undertaking which involves the purchase, sale, or storage for sale, in wholesale

quantities of any food-grain except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf. Under Clause (6) of that order no person being the

holder of a licence issued, or deemed to be issued, under this order shall contravene any of the conditions mentioned in Form A. Condition No. 6

in Form A runs thus:

The licensee shall issue to every customer a correct receipt or invoice as the case may be giving his own name, address and licence number,; the

name, address and licence number (if any) of the customer, the date of transaction, the quantity sold, the price per maund and the total amount

charged and shall keep a duplicate of the same to be available for inspection on demand by any authorised officer of Government.

In this case admittedly the petitioner is a licensee and he has not issued a receipt containing the particulars mentioned above that he should have

given as per condition No. 6 of the licence and his duplicate receipt also does not contain those particulars. Clause (6) specifically states that no

person being the holder of a licence shall contravene any of the conditions. When the petitioner therefore failed to enter these particulars mentioned

above in the receipts in respect of the sale which are the subject-matter of these petitions he contravened Clause (6) of the Food Grains Control

Order which is an order passed under the Defence of India Rules. Consequently, he is clearly guilty of the offence punishable under Rule 81(4) of

the Defence of India Rules, and the rules are framed under the Defence of India Act which is an Act of the Imperial Legislature. I am therefore not

able to see how it could be said that no offence was committed by the petitioner or that he made a mistake when he pleaded guilty. The petitioner

was therefore rightly convicted and I see no reason to interfere with the conviction in all these cases. It is stated that the petitioner is ill and that the

sentence of three months'' rigorous imprisonment is rather excessive. I do not think so. As pointed out by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, it is not

only in respect of one item but in respect of several sales he has failed to make these entries. In the words of the Magistrate

The number and the volume of these transactions definitely suggest a systematic atttempt to evade the provisions of the Control Orders.

The mere fact that he is a trader with a large business can be no excuse; for he must have known the conditions under which the licence was

issued to him and if he failed to comply with the conditions he did so at his peril. It is further stated that he is ill and has produced two medical

certificates. But that is not a matter for consideration by me. He has been put in the B class and he will have medical attendance at the jail. The two

certificates produced by the petitioner will be sent to the jail authorities for taking such action as may be necessary under the Jail Manual with

regard to the petitioner.

I therefore confirm the conviction and sentence and dismiss these petitions. As ordered by the learned Magistrate, the sentences will run

concurrently. The petitions for bail are all dismissed.

The earned Counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to have the petitioner put in the A class. I have no materials before me and the

Magistrate who has to give the class has put him in the B class. Petitioner''s remedy is to move the Government.