L. Jagga Rao and Another vs Emperor

Pande, J.—The petitioner L. Jagga Rao in Criminal Revision No. 199 of 1944 and Bira Sahu, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 217 of 1944, residing at Aska town, the former is the Manager of a Sugar Factory at Aska and the latter is a hotel keeper at the same place. Bira Sahu supplied nine bharanams (about forty maunds) of paddy to the Manager of the Sugar Factory who, in exchange thereof, gave eight bags of sugar to Bira Sahu and a further sum of Rs. 28 was to be paid to him later. On the report of the Supervisor of Supplies both of them were prosecuted for having contravened the provisions of Rule 4, Orissa Food Grains (Control and Movements and Transactions) Order, 1943. On trial, a First Class Magistrate of Russelkonda convicted both the petitioners under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules, and sentenced them to a fine of Rupees 300 each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months each. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of Ganjam Puri affirmed the convictions but modified the sentence by reducing the fine to Rs. 50 each, in default, rigorous imprison, meat for fifteen days each.

It has been urged for the petitioners that the prohibitions provided by Rule 4, Orissa Food Grains Order have no application to the transactions between the parties and so the convictions of the petitioners are bad in law and should be set aside. It is argued that the said rule prohibits transactions of purchase and sale of foodgrains exceeding two standard maunds, whereas the transaction in question was merely exchange of goods, for there was no money consideration for the goods supplied by one party to the other.

In support of the argument reference is made to Section 4(1) and Clause(10) of Section 2, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (Acts [III] of 1980). Section 4(1) provides that a contract of sale of goods is a; contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a price. Section 2(10) defines the word ''price'' to mean the money consideration for a sale of goods.

In my opinion, reference to the provisions of the Indian Sale of Goods Act for interpretation of the said rules in the Orissa Food Grains Order does not seem to be relevant. That Act was enacted to provide for transactions which fall within its scope. The Orissa Food Grains Order, as its title (stated above) indicates, was made to control movements of and transactions in food-grains to meet a special circumstance in the province arising out of the war. The fundamental rule of interpretation of statute is that it is to be expounded "according to the intent of them that made it." If the words of a statute are themselves precise and ambiguous (sic-unambiguous), no more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense.

Here the intention of the authority who made the Food Grains Order, as I have already said, is clearly indicated by the title of the Order itself. The word sale, purchase or price is not defined in the Order to bear any special meaning. Therefore, the words ''sale'' and ''purchase'' in Rule 4 of the Order must be understood in their plain dictionary meaning. In Oxford Dictionary the word ''sale'' is stated to mean the action or an act of selling or making over to another for price, the exchange of a commodity for money or other equivalent consideration. The word ''price'' means the money or other equivalent for which anything is bought or sold. Therefore, according to the plain dictionary meaning of the relevant words, the transaction in question is clearly covered by the prohibitions prescribed by Rule 4 of the said Order.

It also appears from the evidence that money value was the consideration for the goods supplied by one party to the other. In the account books of the Sugar Factory, the transaction is entered as a sale of sugar. Eight bags of sugar were valued at Rs. 212 and nine bharans of paddy at Rs. 240. The difference of Rs. 28 was to be paid later by the Factory Manager, Bira Sahu. It is thus clear that the parties entered into the transactions as sale and purchase of the goods supplied by one to the other. Our attention was drawn to Kedarnath Saha v. Emperor (03) 30 Cal. 92 in support of the contention that the transaction in question was merely an exchange and not a sale. The facts of that case are entirely different. In that case a muktear who had purchased a court-fee stamp for his client transferred it to another client, the latter having agreed to return to the muktear another court-fee of the same value, and was convicted of an offence u/s 84, Court-fees Act. It was found that the muktear never sold the stamp at all. He transferred it to another person and was going to take another stamp in exchange but there was no sale. Accordingly the conviction was set aside.

In that case there was no exchange of one kind of goods for another variety, nor there was anything to show that the exchange was in consideration of money or valuable equivalent there, of. Therefore that case has no application to the facts of the present case.

In my opinion, there is no substance in the contention that the transaction does not fall within the prohibitions of Rule 4, Orissa Food Grains Order.

I would accordingly discharge the rule and dismiss the petitions.

Shearer, J.

I entirely agree.