Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the acquittal of Sunil Bansilal Jain and Bansilal Dagadulal Jain, who were vendors of a kirana shop at Khed-Digar, Taluka Shahada, District Dhule. They were charged under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for selling wheat flour at Rs. 7 per kg, which was above the controlled price of Rs. 6.50 per kg, and for failing to display a price list and maintain a stock register as required under the Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Display of Price and Stocks) Order, 1977. The trial court acquitted them on the grounds that the prosecution did not prove the notification fixing the controlled price and that the accused lacked mens rea. The High Court, in appeal, reversed the acquittal. It held that the seizure panchanama and the testimony of the Food Inspector proved the sale at the excess price, and the accused did not cross-examine the witnesses on this point. The court further held that mens rea is not an essential ingredient for offences under the Essential Commodities Act, which is a social welfare legislation aimed at protecting public interest. The failure to display the price list and maintain stock register was also proved. Consequently, the court convicted the respondents under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clauses 3 and 4 of the Order, sentencing them to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 500 each, with default imprisonment.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Price Control - Sale Above Controlled Price - Section 3 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clauses 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Display of Price and Stocks) Order, 1977 - The respondents were charged with selling wheat flour at Rs. 7 per kg against the controlled price of Rs. 6.50 per kg and failing to display price list and maintain stock register. The trial court acquitted them on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the controlled price notification and that the accused had no mens rea. The High Court reversed the acquittal, holding that the prosecution proved the sale at excess price through seizure panchanama and that mens rea is not an essential ingredient for offences under the Essential Commodities Act, which is a social welfare legislation. The court also noted that the accused did not cross-examine the witnesses on the price aspect. (Paras 1-10) B) Essential Commodities Act - Burden of Proof - Display of Price List and Stock Register - Clauses 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Display of Price and Stocks) Order, 1977 - The prosecution proved that the accused failed to display the price list and maintain stock register as required. The accused did not rebut this evidence. The court held that the burden was on the accused to show compliance, and their failure to do so led to conviction. (Paras 5-10) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 Cr.P.C. - The State appealed against the acquittal. The High Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, found that the trial court's findings were perverse and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court set aside the acquittal and convicted the respondents. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents/accused were guilty of selling wheat flour at a price exceeding the controlled price and failing to display price list and maintain stock register under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Display of Price and Stocks) Order, 1977.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and convicted the respondents under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clauses 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Display of Price and Stocks) Order, 1977. They were sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 500 each, in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Law Points
- Essential Commodities Act
- 1955
- Section 3
- Maharashtra Essential Commodities (Display of Price and Stocks) Order
- 1977
- Clauses 3 and 4
- acquittal reversal
- burden of proof
- mens rea
- strict liability
- price control
- sale above controlled price
- display of price list
- stock maintenance
