Case: Sopana Trimbak Wani Vs. State of Maharashtra

The appellant was at the material time carrying on business as a wholesale dealer in foodgrains under a licence issued to him under the Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 (hereinafter called as the Order of 1963). The license was in a printed from and Clause 1(A) of the license provided that the licensee, if he is a wholesale dealer, shall sell foodgrains only to retailers and consumers and not to licensed wholesalers except under a permit obtained from the licensing authority. Note (1) of Clause 7(A) declared that the licensing authority may permit a wholesaler, who is a license, to sell foodgrains to a licensed wholesaler in other States, subject to the restrictions that may operate one movement offoodgrains andalso permit a licensed wholesaler of one market to sell foodgrains to a licensed wholesaler in another market within the State, in cases where he is satisfied that such sales are made in accordance with the traditional pattern of trade.      2. On March 18, 1967 the appellant made three applications to the Mamlatdar for permit to export certain quantities of foodgrains to M/s. Ratilal Ramanlal at "Shrirampur". It was not stated in the applications to which "Shrirampur" he intended to exportfoodgrains andno particulars were given. But as subsequent events show, he intended to export foodgrains not to "Shrirampur" which is situate in Maharashtra but to "Serampore", a place near Calcutta. The Mamlatdar issued three permits on the basis of the applications made by the appellant and by these three permits the Mamlatdar permitted the appellant to sell certain specified quantities of foodgrains to M/s. Ratilal Ramanlal of Shrirampur within three days from the date of each permit. These three permits were issued by the Mamlatdar in exercise of the powers vested in him under Clause 7(A) of the licence under the order of 1963. It appears that when the appellant went to the goods clerk for the purpose of dispatching the foodgrains to Serampore, he was told by the goods clerk that there was no goods shed at Serampore railway station near Calcutta and no wagon could, therefore, be made available for exporting the foodgrains to Serampore, but instead the appellant might export the foodgrains to Shalimar railway station where a goods shed was available. The appellant thereupon got the three permits amended by a clerk in the office of the Mamlatdar by substituting the words "Shalimar via Nagpur" for the word "Shrirampur" and on the strength of these amended permits, he exported the foodgrains to Shalimar. When the Mamlatdar came to know that the appellant had exported foodgrains outside the State of Maharashtra on the strength of the permits issued by him, without obtaining permits under Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains (Export Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Order of 1966), he immediately reported the matter after holding an inquiry and a complaint was lodged against the appellant and two others inter alia for contravention of Clause 3 of order of 1966, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who tried the case, convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause 3 of the order of 1966 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him, preferred an appeal to the High Court, but the High Court agreeing with the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, confirmed the conviction and merely gave relief in regard to sentence by reducing it from one year to six months rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the sentence of fine. The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.

Court's reasoning:
These three permits certainly permitted him to all the specified quantities of foodgrains to M/s. Ratilal Ramanlal of Shalimar and it could not, therefore, be said to be altogether unreasonable on his part to carry an impression that these three permits did authorise him to carry the specified quantities of foodgrains to Shalimar. It is true that the Mamlatdar had no authority to issue an authorisation for export under Clause 3 of the order of 1966, but under that clause any officer could be authorised by the State Government or by the Collector to issue such authorisation and the appellant might well have believed that the Mamlatdar was an officer authorised to issue such authorisation. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this is a fit case in which we would be justified in acting under the proviso to Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone by the appellant though it would be less than three months. The appellant has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3000. We find from the evidence that the appellant has not made a profit of more than Rs. 2300 in this transaction. We think that, in the circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice if the fine imposed on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 2000.