MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION versus M. NILA CHANDRA SINGH

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 29-11-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
November 29 
574 
SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS 
[1964] 
MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION 
]I. 
M. NILA CHANDRA SINGH 
(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) 
Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958 els. 2(a), 
3(1) & 3(2)-Storage of foodgrains-Dealer-Presumption under 
cl. 3(2)-Whether attracts cl. 3(1)-Essential Commodities Act, 
1955 (Act 10 of 1955), s. 7. 
The respondent was found storing over 100 mds. of paddy 
in his godown without any licence in violation of cl. 3 of the 
Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order. He was charged 
with having committed an offence under s. 7 of the Essential Commo-
dities Act. 
The respondent's main defence was that the paddy 
was meant for the consumption of the members of his family, 
which was disbelieved 
by the Trial 
Magistrate. The Trial 
Magistrate held that as a result of the provisions contained in cl. 3(2) 
of the Order a presumption arose against the respondent, taking 
his case under cl. 3(1) of the Order, which in turn attracted the 
provisions of cl. 7 of the Order and made the respondent liable 
under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On these findings 
the Magistrate convicted the respondent under s. 7 of the Act. 
An appeal by the respondent to the Sessions Judge was dismissed. 
The respondent then filed a Revision Application to the Judicial 
Commissioner, which succeeded. The Judicial Commissioner 
held that the effect of the presumption which can be legitimately 
raised under cl. 13(2) of the Order is not that the person against 
whom the said presumption has been drawn is a dealer in respect of 
the said goods; and so, merely on the strength of the said presump-
tion, cl. 3(1) of the Order cannot be attracted. In appeal by special 
1eave, 
Held: 
(i) Under cl. 2(a) of the Order before a person can be 
said to be a dealer, it must be shown that he carries on business of 
purchase or sale or storage for sale of any of the commodities 
specified in the Schedule and that sale must be in quantity of 100 
mds. or more at any one time; the concept of business in the context 
must necessarily postulate continuity of transactions. A single, 
casual or solitary transaction of sale, purchase or storage would not 
make a person a dealer. 
(ii) Cl. 3(2) raises a statutory presumption that the stock of 
100 mds. or more of specified goods found with an individual, 
had been stored by him for the purpose of sale. After the presump-
tion is raised under cl. 3(2), some evidence must be led which would 
justify the conclusion that the store which was made for the purpose 
of sale was made by the person for the purpose of carrying on the 
business. The element of business which is essential to attract 
the provisions of cl. 3(1) is not covered by the presumption raised 
under cl. 3(2). 
:... 
.... 
• 
5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
575 
(iii) Cl. 3(2) may have been deliberately worded so as to raise 
a limited presumption in order to exclude cultivators who may 
on occasions be in possession of more than 100 mds. of foodgrains 
grown in their fields; the Order, apparently did not want to make 
such possession, sale or storage liable to be punished under cl. 3(1) 
read with s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 
1963 
Manipur 
Administration 
v. 
M. Nila 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal Chandra Singh 
Appeal No. 143 of 1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
December 2, · 1961 of the Judicial Commissioner's 
Court at Manipur in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 
1961. 
B.K. Khanna and R.N. Sachthey, for the appellant. 
W.S. Barlingay, and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the 
respondent. 
November 29, 1963. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-The short question of Gajendragadkar 
law which arises in this appeal relates to the construe-
J. 
tion of cl. 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers 
Licensing Order, 1958. This question arises in this 
way. 
The respondent was charged with having commit-
ted an offence punishable under s. 7 of the Essential 
Commodities Act, 1955 in that on February 9, 1960, 
he was found storing 178 Mds. of paddy in his godown 
without any licence in violation of cl. 3 of the said 
Order. The case against the respondent was that 
on February 9, 1960, his godown was searched and 
178 Mds. of paddy was found stored in it. This fact 
was not denied by the respondent though be pleaded 
that the paddy which was found in his godown was 
meant for the consumption of the members of his 
family who numbered fifteen.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.