Case: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jai Prakash

2. The respondent holds a licence for paddy milling machine in Jansath, District Muzaffarnagar. He was prosecuted on the allegation that in 1965 he worked his paddy milling machine and produced 76 quintals of rice but did not sell 60 per cent of the same to the State Government as required by clause 3 of the Order. On March 8, 1966 Marketing Inspector V. D. Tyagi visited the mills premises of the respondent but did not find the said stock of rice there.3. The plea of the respondent was that paddy in question did not belong to him but to the cultivators. As such according to him, he was not liable to sell 60 per cent of the rice to the State Government.4. The trial magistrate held that the respondent had "hulled" rice at the rice mill and that there was no proof that the said rice belonged to the respondent. All the same the respondent, in the opinion of the trial magistrate, was bound to sell to the Government 60 per cent of the rice manufactured at his mill. The respondent was accordingly convicted under Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules forwith clause 3 of the Order.5. In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment of the trial magistrate. When the matter was taken up in revision, the High Court took the view that clause 3 of the Order was most unreasonable in so far as it dealt with rice not belonging to the licensed miller. In the opinion of the High Court, the said clause was liable to be struck down for sheer irrationality and illegality. The High Court accordingly set aside the conviction of the respondent and acquitted him.

Court's reasoning:
6. We have heard Mr. Uniyal on behalf of the appellant State and are of the opinion that the acquittal of the accused respondent should not be interferedare in the present case concerned with clause 3 (3) and thequestion which arises for determination is whether the respondent can be said to have contravened that clause because of his having allowed the removal of the stock of rice from the mill premises before selling 60 per cent of the same to the State Government.In this respect we are of the view that the ban on the sale, disposal or removal of the rice before the sale of the prescribed percentage of the stock of that rice to the State Government contemplated by(3) of clause 3 refers to such stock of rice as belongs to the licensed miller or licensed dealer. This is clear from the use of the words "his stock of rice" in the aforesaidThe said words point to the inference that if the rice does not belong to the licensed miller but has been brought to the mill premises by others for the purpose of miling the provisions of the saidwould not be attracted. As the rice in question in the present case has been found to belong not to the respondent, it is manifest that he cannot be held to have contravened(3) of the Order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the acquittal of the respondent should not be interfered with.