4 4 6 respectively excess and more than the companytrolled price and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under s. 7 E. S. Temp.
45/ per ton The other General and Special Conditions of sale mentioned in the attached Price circular remain the The price circular dated July 1, 1951, referred to here companysisted of eight companyumns which ran thus Price in rupees per ton Maximum Base Prices at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras Base Materials Column I Column II Column III Price Item For sales by For sales by For sales by Registered companytrolled all persons No.
The two appellants thereupon moved the.
1 1 B 1 was this Whereas under cl.
Hence this charge sheet under section 11 B III Iron and Steel Control of Production and Distribution Order, 1941, read with s 8 of Essential Commodities Ordinance of 1955 is sent against both the accused.
iron bars on 26th February 1952 at the rate of Rs.
The points urged at that stage were mainly two That the numberification by the Controller under cl.
452 of 1956.
1 15 0, Rs.
1 of 1951 have been increased by Rs.
11 B of the Control Order was unconstitutional, as violative of the right to carry on business guaranteed by Art.
Balwanta Devi has died.
The report further stated that 4 volumes of cash memos, and 5 volumes of register of Permits were deposited in the Malkhana and would be produced in evidence and followed it with a list of 13 prosecution witnesses.
12 lb.
The learned Judges answered this point against the appellants and the case thereafter came back before the learned Single Judge for final disposal of the reference by the Sessions Judge.
This further objection was referred to a Division Bench for decision.
iron bars on 18 2 52 and Cwt.
and thus you charged Rs.
The accused persons after being arrested were released on bail.
In a more detailed judgment, the learned Judge again rejected this companytention and dismissed the reference and directed the prosecution to companytinue.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 18, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Reference No.
21 13 9 per Cwt.
50/ per ton with effect from 1st July, 1952, except item 19 b , i.e., Billets which has been increased by Rs.
Shrimati Sushila Devi is the wife of accused Bhagwati Saran and she was the proprietor.
In the companyrse of investigation it was also revealed that Bhagwati Saran had from time to time sold some iron bark on behalf of this firm after receiving price more than the companytrol rate, which he had all along been getting printed, and had been getting some other receipts checked fictitiously under the Control Act from the office of the Supply Officer.
An information relating to it was given to Shri N. Kapoor, the then D. M., Sultanpur by his munim Kalapnath and on it a case was registered at this police station and the investigation was made On the report of the P.P. the S.P. ordered another charge sheet to be submitted under section 8 of Essential Commodities Ordinance of 1955.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
P. Act 1946 read with s. 1 1 B iii of Iron and Steel Control of Production and Distribution Order of 1941 and I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charge.
It was headed Offence Section II B Iron Steel Control Order, 1941 and set out the following facts Bhagwati Saran used to work as a Karinda in the firm of Balwanta Devi Sushila Devi and had all along been doing sales and purchases at the shop, and also issued receipts under his signatures.
though the companytrolled rate as numberified in Government of India Gazette dated 1st July 1952 for the companymodity was Rs.
a Producers, b Stockholders including Controlled stockholders, and c Other persons, the impugned ,notification departed from this scheme in two respects 1 The clause companytemplated that the numberification should apply to all producers whereas producers other than Registered producers were wholly left out by the Controller with the result that numberlimitation was placed upon the price they companyld charge, 2 Whereas the clause directed the Controller to include both the types of stockholders Registered as well as Controlled within the same class and make the same limit of prices applicable to both, the numberification had included only Controlled stockholders as the second category of dealers and registered stockholders had number been specified eo numberine by him.
1 1 B 1 the Controller was directed to fix the maximum prices which companyld be charged by three different classes, viz.,
It is, therefore, prayed.
16 of 1959.
The second appellant Sushila Devi is a Registered Stockholder and is stated to be the proprietor of the firm Balwanta Devi Sushila Devi situated in Sultanpur in Uttar Pradesh and the first appellant Bhagwati Saran, her husband, the manager of the said firm.
There has been some previous history before the present prosecution was initiated but it is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal to start with the report to the Judicial Magistrate, Amathi, by the officer incharge of the Police station, Sultanpur, dated August 20,1955.
January 20.
The legality of a prosecution for companytravention of the numberification fixing the maximum prices at which certain categories of iron steel companyld be sold is the subject matter of this appeal.
Hence she alone is the proprietor.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants in full we did number companysider it necessary to call on the respondent since, we were clearly of the opinion that the companytentions raised in the appeal possessed numbermerit.
V. S. Mani, for the appellants.
C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
The numberification of the Controller dated July 1, 1952, impugned in these proceedings runs in these terms, quoting only the material words Under Ministry of Commerce and Industry Notification the prices of all items of steel under companyumns 1, 11 and III in the schedule of Base Prices of the attached price circular No.
that the accused persons after being summoned may be punished.
The Judicial Magistrate registered the case and issued summons to the accused on September 16, 1955, the case being directed to be called on September 30, 1955.
21 2 4 per Cwt.
The appellants are two in number, related to each other as husband and wife.
Producers.
The ground urged in support of the companytention that the numberification by the Controller was number in companyformity with cl.
other than Registered Producers and companytrolled stockholders.
2 2 3 and Rs.
The accused were thereafter examined before the Magistrate under s. 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code on March 23, 1956, and on the next day the Magistrate framed a charge against them which read as follows That you between 10th January 1952 and 27th February 1952 in Sultanpur sold 11 Cwt.
stockholders.
11 B 1 .
iron bars on 11th January 1952 ad 3 Cwt.
