Puranmal vs Emperor

The petitioner was convicted under Rule 81, Clause (4), Defence of India Rules, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. According to the prosecution, the petitioner sold salt and kerosene oil beyond the controlled rate. He has been acquitted of the charge for selling salt beyond the controlled rate, but has been convicted for selling kerosene oil beyond the controlled rate. It is said that he sold oil at five annas per bottle of 22 oz. against the controlled rate of three annas.

The learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate fixing the price beyond which such oil was not to be sold has neither been produced nor exhibited in the case. The prosecution depended upon a so-called price list and the oral testimony of the Assistant Price Control Officer.

The learned advocate, therefore, suggests that there is no legal evidence on the record to prove the price fixed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate and he relies upon two decisions of this Court in Jagarnath v. Emperor A.I.R (45) Pat. 307 and Ram Prasad Moral and Another Vs. Emperor, . He has not raised the question as to whether the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate had been published in a manner prescribed by him, as he argued that the order itself had not been produced. We are of the opinion that there is a lacuna in the prosecution evidence, for the evidence of the Assistant Price Control Officer and the price list cannot take the place of the order of the Sub-divisional officer fixing the price, and it is this order which it is alleged by the prosecution to have been contravened.

There is, therefore, on the record no legal evidence to show that when the petitioner sold kerosene oil at five annas per bottle of 22 oz. he had sold it at a rate beyond that fixed in the order made by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. In the circumstances the conviction and sentence must be set aside, and the rule made absolute. The fine if paid will be refunded.

Having regard to the view which we take on the facts of this case, it is unnecessary for us to go into the question as to the correctness or otherwise of the decision of this Court in Jagarnath v. Emperor AIR (45) Pat. 307 on account of which this case was referred to a larger Bench by Shearer J.