1953 (2) TMI 37 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the explanation added to Section 7(2), Essential Supplies Act, 1946 regarding possession of excess foodgrain.
2. Joint liability of two individuals under Section 7(2) of the Essential Supplies Act for possession of paddy exceeding the prescribed limit.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The revision application challenges the order committing the petitioners to the Court of Session for violating the Essential Supplies Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners moved paddy in excess of the prescribed limit, leading to charges under the Govt. of West Bengal Cordoning Order and the West Bengal Foodgrains Control Order. The key argument raised was the interpretation of the explanation in Section 7(2), which provides a grace of five maunds for possession not exceeding the prescribed limit. The court clarified that the grace applies only if the excess amount is within five maunds of the maximum quantity prescribed by the Order, not twice the prescribed limit. The court emphasized that the explanation is not redundant, as it may apply in states with lower prescribed limits, impacting the punishment under the Act. Therefore, the court rejected the contention that the explanation should be read as providing a grace above twice the prescribed limit.

Issue 2:
The second point raised concerns the joint liability of the two petitioners for possession of paddy exceeding the prescribed limit. The petitioners argued that since each individual could possess up to ten maunds as per the West Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, their joint possession of 21 1/2 maunds did not exceed twice the maximum quantity they could possess individually. The court noted that the term "person" in the Order includes a group of individuals in joint possession, as per the General Clauses Act. The court highlighted that the explanation in the Order only limits liability to the head of a household in certain cases, not to all members. Therefore, if the petitioners do not belong to the same household, they would be jointly liable under the law. The court rejected the argument that the petitioners could claim separate possession to avoid joint liability, emphasizing that the determination of household status would be made during the trial. Consequently, the court discharged the Rule in favor of maintaining joint liability for the petitioners.