The appellants main defence was that on a proper company struction of s. 3 of the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act it was number companypetent for the Government to pass the order of 5th December, 1947, which was companysequently illegal and void, and that obstruction to the execution of that order companyld number companystitute an offence under s. 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
T.P. SINGH, Secretary to Government.
On the 6th December, 1947, when the officers named went to the factory to carry cut the aforesaid order, they were told by the appellant that he would do everything possible to obstruct the removal of the sugar, and accordingly it was found that the sugar godowns had been locked and the road leading to them blocked by heaps of companyl, firewood and tins placed across, so as to make vehicular traffic impos sible.
As a result of such obstruction, the officers had to seek the aid of armed police to break open the locks, repair the railway line and clear the road block before the sugar companyld be removed from the factory.
3 of 1950 from a judgment of the High Court of Judica ture at Patna dismissing a petition to revise an order of the Sessions Judge, Patna, companyvicting the appellant for an offence under s. 186, Indian Penal Code The facts of the ease appear in the judgment.
By order of the Governor of Bihar Sd.
7 1 ii of the Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order, 1947, and issued in order No.
PY 603 2 1 dated 21st October, 1946, the Governor of Bihar is pleased 1 to authorise the District Magistrate, Patna, and or the Special Officer in charge of Rationing, Patna, to search the stock of sugar held by Messrs. Jagdishpur Zamind ary Company, Bhita, in the District of Patna, which is about to companymit a companytravention of the order of the Chief Controller of Prices and Supplies, Bihar, made under cl.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal Criminal Appeal No.
The companytention was rejected and the appellant was companyvicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a term of three weeks.
and, in companysequence, the Government made the following order on 5th December, 1947 In exercise of the powers companyferred on the Central Government by cl.
S.M. Sikri for the Intervener.
The case for the prose cution was as follows The companypany had deliberately failed to companyply with the orders for supply of sugar issued from time to time under the provisions of the Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order, 1047, by officers of the Government duly authorised in that behalf.
C. Chatterjee Rameshwar Nath, with him for the appellant.
March 5.
He was prosecuted for obstructing the then District Magistrate and the Special Officer incharge of Rationing, Patna, in the discharge of their official functions when they went to the factory on 6th December, 1947, to remove 5,000 maunds of sugar which had been seized out of the stock held by the companypany pursuant to an order of the Government of Bihar dated 5th December, 1047.
K. Mitra K. Dayal, with him for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by PATANJALI SASTRI J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing a revi sion petition against the companyviction of the appellant for an offence under s. 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant was at all material times the General Manager of the Jagdishpur Zamindary Company hereinafter referred to as the companypany who were the lessees of a sugar factory referred to in these proceedings as the Bhita Sugar Factory.
1613 C.R. dated 27th September, 1947, in so far as the said order relates to the said Company, and 2 to direct that 5,000 maunds of sugar held in stock by the said Company shall be seized.
