The State vs Sashi Bhushan Bera

This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Midnapore commending that proceedings in a case in which a charge had (sic) framed against the Petitioners u/s 7(2) of Act XXIV of 16 for having run a husking mill without licence under the est Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1949, should be quashed 1 the charges dropped.

It appears that the Petitioners were on December 19, 1949, (sic) date of commencement of West Bengal Rice Mills Control under, 1949, referred to hereafter as the Control Order, 1949, (sic) in the business of husking paddy on the authority of a (sic) issued under the Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1943. January 7, 1950, they applied for a licence under the Control under, 1949, but on February 15, 1950, they continued the (sic) though they had not yet been granted a licence under the West Bengal Control Order, 1949, for which they had applied.

The question whether the charge that was framed was stainable in law depends on the interpretation of Section 4 of the (sic) Order, 1949, which runs in these words:

No person shall engage in any undertaking or business of milling rice except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence issued in that behalf by Commissioner :

Provided that persons who are engaged in any such undertaking or business at (sic) commencement of this Order on the authority of a licence issued under the (sic) Rice Mills Control Order, 1943, shall obtain in accordance with the proving of this Order licence under this Order within one month of such commencement (sic) on such undertaking or business.

Our judgment, the only possible interpretation of this (sic) is that while persons who were not engaged in any underlying or business of milling rice at the commencement of this under of 1949, under the Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1943, ire forbidden to engage in such an undertaking without (sic) a licence in their behalf by the Commissioner, persons 10 were at the commencement of the Order engaged in any such (sic) were permitted to continue in such an undertaking the strength of the old licence for a period of one month within which time they were required to get from the authorities concerned a licence under the West Bengal Control under, 1949 and if they could not get any such licence within is period of one month, they were in the same position as (sic) who had no licence under the Bengal Rice Mills Control order, 1943 and could not continue to run their mill on the (sic) of the old licence.

Mr. Mukherji who appeared in support of the Reference (sic) to convince us that the word "obtain" used in the proviso has been used in the sense of "apply", in other words, what says is, if persons were engaged in the undertaking or (sic) mentioned at the commencement of the Control Order, 1949, the authority of a licence under the Bengal Control Order, 1949 all that they were required to do under the proviso is that the had to apply within the period of one month of such(sic)(sic) and if they had once applied, it did not matter whether the application was granted within the period of one month or (sic) The learned Judge also is apparently of the same opinion (sic) he has said in dealing with the section that "Petitioners (sic) "required to apply within time and this they did". The (sic) that the Petitioners had applied on January 7, 1950 and (sic) perhaps if the authorities had been as quick as could be (sic) the Petitioners might have obtained the licence within the period of one month, are certainly matters to be taken into consideration in deciding the punishment that should be inflicted for contravention of the Order. But we are unable to agree that word "apply" should be read in the place where the Legislature had used the word "obtain". These two words are far (sic) and we cannot possibly attribute negligence to the Legislature.

In our judgment if the facts as alleged by the prosecution a believed, it cannot be said that the charge is not sustainable Whether the facts have been proved or not is a matter in (sic) we do not express any opinion nor do we desire to express an opinion on the question whether in cases of this nature, where party had taken early steps for obtaining a licence, (sic) authorities concerned should usually launch prosecution.

The Reference is, therefore, rejected.