Ramji Agarwal and Others vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Din, J.—Heard Mrs. Raj Laxmi Sinha, holding brief of Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, the learned senior advocate, appearing for the revisionists. I also heard the learned A.G.A. Perused the relevant papers filed with the revision and the supplementary affidavit.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the revisionists are the partners in the firm M/s. Bindhya Iron Stores. The firm has also engaged itself in cement business and it stored the cement for sale under a valid licence issued by the competent authority. The allegations against the revisionists that they had obtained 1009 bags of cement from Pariyojana Department through a Junior Engineer is absolutely wrong.

A licence in the Form ''Kha'' was issued to the firm, of which the revisionists are the partners, in month of September, 1984, which was valid upto 31.3.1985. The licence was issued under Cement Control Order, 1973, for retail sale of the cement by the firm. Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit shows that the licence issued to the firm was renewed upto 15.9.1986. It was, however, suspended by order dated 15.9.1986. Thus, it is established from the documents that the revisionists had a valid licence on 13.9.1986 when the cement was recovered from the store and seized.

As far relates to the other allegations that the cement was obtained by unlawful means by purchasing it from Pariyojana Department through a Junior Engineer, this fact needs to be proved by adducing evidence by the prosecution. At present, there is no document on record to demonstrate that the cement which was recovered and seized by the police on 13.9.1986 was a non-levy cement and also purchased by the firm from a factory or the stockist having valid licence/permit under the U.P. Cement Control/Order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is made without sufficient ground for proceeding u/s 3/7, E.C. Act. The revisionist will, however, have an opportunity to raise a plea that the recovered cement was a non-levy cement and they purchased it under a legal transaction and not from the Pariyojana Department through a Junior Engineer. The impugned order does not suffer from any error, illegality or irregularity. So also, the order is not without jurisdiction.

The revision is, therefore, without merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court will dispose of the bail application, expeditiously, if and when the revisionists appear in the Court and move the bail applications.