AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—The two petitioners are the driver and the cleaner of lorry MDU 9877 which carried sixty bags of paddy on 29th
August, 1968 at 3 p.m. from Kallampatti to Madurai. The said lorry was checked at Othalkadal by P.W.3; the petitioners were arrested and the paddy bags ware seized. The petitioners question the propriety of their conviction under Cl. 3 (1) of the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealer's
(Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1968. The argument of Mr. Fyzee Mohammed Is that even accepting the facts proved by the prosecution, the two petitioners cannot be brought within the ambit of the definition In Cl. 2 (c) of the Order, which is as follows:
"Dealer" means a person engaged in the business of purchase, movement, sale or storage for sale of paddy or rice in quantity of two quintals or
more at any one time In the State......
Cl. 3 (1) of the Order reads thus;
No person shall start afresh or carry on business as a dealer except under and In accordance with the terms and conditions of a license Issued In this behalf by the licensing authority.
The key or rather the material words In Cl. 2 (c) are "engaged in the business of". Even acting on the facts said to have been proved by the
prosecution, it cannot be conclusively stated that the two petitioners are engaged in the business of purchase, movement, state or storage for sale of paddy or rice in quantity of two quintals or more. I hold the view that the evidence en record is not sufficient to prove contravention if Cl. 3 (1)
of the order. The conviction of the petitioners and the sentence of fine Imposed on the first petitioner and the order of admonition Imposed on petitioner 2 are set aside. The fine amount, if already paid by the first petitioner, will be refunded to him.
Regarding the sixty bags of paddy seized from the petitioners, they have not claimed the bags daring the trial. The learned counsel for the
petitioners represented that there are allegedly four claimants for the bags in question. The District Magistrate (J) Madurai Is directed to hold a full-
fledged enquiry into the ownership of end title to the paddy In question and pass orders In accordance with law.