Shiker Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....the conviction under section 3/7 of essential commodities act but reduced the sentence to rising of the court with a fine of rs. 1,000/-.2. the facts necessary to be noticed in short are that the petitioner applied for grant of licence for sale of food-grain on 25-10-76. the licence was granted on 15-11-76. inspection was conducted at the business premises on 9-11-76 and it is found that petitioner was selling foodgrains (wheat etc.) without licence. petitioner submitted that he has applied for licence in october and the licence was ready in the office but pending only for the signature of the concerned officer, on 9-11-76. when the licence was complete and there is no hitch in issuing the licence to the petitioner, he started the business in anticipation, therefore, no offence has been committed by him. the trial court convicted him for the offence under section 3/7 and sentenced him to under go one year r.i. and pay fine of rs. 2,000/- that was reduced in appeal by learned sessions judge as aforesaid.3. being dissatisfied with the judgment of court below, petitioner has filed this revision petition. learned counsel for the petitioner shri lodha submitted that though the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Y.R. Meena, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Merta, whereby, he has confirmed the conviction under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act but reduced the sentence to rising of the Court with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. The facts necessary to be noticed in short are that the petitioner applied for grant of licence for sale of food-grain on 25-10-76. The licence was granted on 15-11-76. Inspection was conducted at the business premises on 9-11-76 and it is found that petitioner was selling foodgrains (wheat etc.) without licence. Petitioner submitted that he has applied for licence in October and the licence was ready in the office but pending only for the signature of the concerned officer, on 9-11-76. When the licence was complete and there is no hitch in issuing the licence to the petitioner, he started the business in anticipation, therefore, no offence has been committed by him. The trial Court convicted him for the offence under Section 3/7 and sentenced him to under go one year R.I. and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- that was reduced in appeal by learned Sessions Judge as aforesaid.

3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of Court below, petitioner has filed this revision petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Lodha submitted that though the licence has been issued to the petitioner on 15th November, 1976 and he applied in October, 1976 the office concerned has taken undue time in issuing licence, therefore, in anticipation when the licence was ultimately issued just after 4 days no offence has been committed. He further, submitted that when there is no mensrea, no case is made out against him. He also placed his reliance to the decision of their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43 : 1966 Cri LJ 71.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor for the State. Their Lordships has held in Nathulal's case (supra) as under: --

That on the facts of the case the conviction of the accused should be set aside. The accused was under a bona fide impression that the licence in regard to which he had made an application was issued to him though not actually sent to him. It was under this impression that he had stored the grain. The fact that the licensing authority did not communicate to him the rejection of his application confirmed the accused's belief. It was on that belief that he stored the food-grains and was sending the relevant returns to the concerned authority. It was, therefore, a storage of foodgrains within the prescribed limits under a bona fide belief that he could legally do so. He could not, therefore, be said to have intentionally contravened the provisions of Section 7 of the Act or those of the order made under Section 3 of the Act.

5. In the instant case the facts are not in dispute that petitioner has applied for licence on 25-10-76. The licence was ready in the office on 9-11-76, but was not delivered to him as the concerned clerk was on leave or sometime pending for the signature of the concerned officer. On these facts it cannot be said that the petitioner has intentionally contravened the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, therefore, I am of the opinion that no offence! is made out against the petitioner.

6. In the result, the conviction and sentence set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He need not surrender to his bail bonds.