State of Haryana vs Mahabir Parshad

R.L. Anand, J.

The State of Haryana has filed the present criminal revision and it has been directed against the order dated 13.8.1986 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Narnaul, who discharged the accused Mahabir Parshad from the allegations under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Mahabir Parshad, a salesman of CONFED Branch Mahendergarh was arraigned as accused launched by Mahendergarh police under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for having contravened the provisions of Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality JUDGMENT 1977. The sum and substance of accusation made against the petitioner by the prosecution was that he was guilty of malpractices in the matter of distribution of imported sugar through the agency of CONFED; that he had failed to distribute sugar to the ration card holders of two villages, although entries to the contrary were made in the Sales/Stock Register. The alleged irregularity committed by the respondent was noticed at the time of survey of villages by some officials of the Food and Supplies Department.

On the completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned. However, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the allegations against the respondent are meaningless. Resultantly, vide order dated 13.8.1986, respondent was discharged and the reasons advanced by the learned Special Judge, Narnaul are incorporated in paras No. 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the impugned order, which I quote as follows :

"The gravamen of indictment against the accused lay in the fact that all purchases and sales etc. were not correctly accounted for and were not in conformity with actual transactions made in contravention of provisions of Clause 9 of Control JUDGMENTConcededly, that Control JUDGMENT was applicable only in case of articles specified in the scheduled thereto. On the own showing of prosecution imported sugar was not one of the scheduled articles covered by the Control

The point vehemently canvassed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, was that imported sugar fell within the domain of sugar, one of the scheduled articles.

That contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor must be repelled. The article sugar naturally was a sweet substance obtained from the kind of cane called as sugarcane. Surely, the imported sugar did not come within the domain of sugar included in the list of articles mentioned in scheduled.

There was nothing on record to show that imported sugar was a controlled item. It was only in the case of levy sugar that the distribution thereof was being regulated through the authorised dealers. There was certainly no such check or control in the matter of distribution of imported sugar. The Food and Supplies authorities have not issued any licence in favour of consumers cooperative stores being run by Haryana State Federation of Consumer''s Wholesale Stores for the distribution of the imported sugar through its various outlets.

The learned defence counsel has also referred to the instructions contained in Circular Letter No. F 6285/RA 905, dated Chandigarh, the 15th November, 1985 issued by Director, Food and Supplies, Haryana, Chandigarh, wherein it was emphasised that there was no prohibition on the free sale of imported sugar. Until and unless, there was any restriction on the sale, storage or distribution of some such article, the accused, employed as a salesman with some such cooperative body, could not be saddled with any criminal liability".

Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision, which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri S.S. Pattar, AAG, Haryana and Mr. P.S. Rana, who gave appearance on behalf of the respondent.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that imported sugar also falls within the category of sugar as mentioned in the schedule of Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality JUDGMENT 1977 and by virtue of the provisions of Rule 9 of the said order, the respondent was guilty of the offence. As against it, it was submitted by Mr. Rana that imported sugar is not sugar as mentioned in item No. 4 of the Schedule attached with the order. There must be specific mention by the Govt. that imported sugar would also be covered for the purposes of Rule No. 9.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the reasons adopted by the learned Special Judge, Narnaul are erroneous. Rule 9 of the JUDGMENT lays down that physical stock balances of various articles in a fair price shop, authorised and approved by the Government or by any officer authorised by it in this behalf, shall conform to the book balance as per accounts books maintained by him. According to sub rule (2) of Rule 9, all purchases, sales and production made will be correctly accounted for in the accounts books maintained and shall conform to the actual transactions made. Under Rule 2 subclause (a) `article'' means an article specified in the Schedule to this order and it shall be deemed to be in the possession of a person, when it is held on behalf of that person by another person notwithstanding that it is mortgaged to another person. Item No. 4 makes a mention of sugar. In the opinion of this court the word `sugar'' has to be interpreted in the broader perspective by keeping in view the intention of the Legislature when it promulgated the JUDGMENT i.e. the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality JUDGMENT 1977. In order to avoid the scarcity in the country, the Govt. must have decided to import the sugar. The sugar is nothing but a sweetening element, used by the consumers in the preparation of various articles of food. To give a limited meaning as propounded by the counsel for the respondent to the word `sugar'' will tantamount to the defeating of the provisions of the JUDGMENT itself. The reasons adopted by the learned Special Judge in the impugned order dated 13.8.1986 are totally erroneous causing a serious miscarriage of justice to the State.

Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the impugned order is of 1986 and by this time the respondent Mahabir Parshad might have left the job of the Department and with the passage of time, this Court may not allow this revision. The argument is not acceptable to this court. It is for the trial Court to see whether it will be proper against the accused to proceed with the trial or not. This court is, however, of the opinion that grounds of discharge given by the learned Special Judge, Narnaul are absolutely not tenable. The ordinance shall also cover the imported sugar as per item No. 4 of the schedule attached with Regulation No. 2(a) of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality JUDGMENT 1977 and limited meaning cannot be given to the word `sugar''.

Resultantly, this revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.8.1986 is hereby set aside and directions are given to the learned Special Judge, Narnaul to restore the proceedings from the stage when those were dropped and to proceed against the respondent according to law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Special Judge, Narnaul on 22.9.97.