9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under Rule 116(2) and Rule 122 of the Defence of India Rules for failure to furnish stock statements. 2. Lack of evidence regarding proper notification publication and accused's knowledge of the notification. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment involved the trial of the managing director of a company under Rule 116(2) and Rule 122 of the Defence of India Rules for not submitting stock statements as per a government notification. The accused was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine or face imprisonment. The prosecution argued that the accused failed to provide the required stock declarations for specific food grains as mandated by the notification. The defense claimed they were not aware of the notification's requirements, although the company had been regularly submitting monthly returns as per their wholesale license terms. The Magistrate found the accused guilty based on the publication of the notification in the Government Gazette, deeming the accused informed. 2. The main issue raised in the appeal was the lack of evidence regarding the proper publication of the notification and the accused's knowledge of its contents. The applicant contended that there was no proof of how the issuing authority intended to inform the concerned parties about the notification. The Rule required the authority to decide the best method for publication to inform the affected persons. However, in this case, only the publication in the Government Gazette was evident, with no indication of how the authority decided on the manner of publication. The burden of proving the suitable publication method rested on the prosecution, which was not fulfilled. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity under the Indian Evidence Act did not apply in this situation, and the accused's conviction based on knowledge of the notification was not justified. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and the sentence, and acquitted the applicant. The Court highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the proper notification publication and the accused's knowledge, leading to the insufficiency of grounds for the conviction. The fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded.
|
