LexNAGARMAL TEKRIWAL versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A. NAGARMAL TEKRIWAL v. STATE OF BIHAR March 4, 1970 899 B [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ,] c D E G H Bihar Foodgrains Dealer's Licensing Order, 1966, Para, 3(2)-Pre- sumption from storage of foodgrains when to be drawn-Exemption for agriculturists. Evidence Act, 1812-Lease-deeds even if not registered can be used in criminal case for collateral purpose-Oral evidence not lo be rejected on mere ground that it is of next-door neighbours. On search of the appellant's premises foodgrains above quantities permitted under the Bihar Foodgrain Dealer's Licensing Order 1966 were found. He was prosecuted under s. 7 of the Essential .Commodities Act for violation of cl'. 3 QI the Order. The appellant produced oral and documentary evidence to show that he was an agl'iculturist and therefore the presumption under cl. 3(2) of the order that he had' stored the foodgrains for sale could not be drawn against him. The documentary evidence aforesaid consisted of lease deeds executed by the appellant and his brother in favour of lessees. The oral evidence showed that he and his brother were in possession of 80--90 bighas of land on which the foodgrains found in his possession were grown. The documentary evi- dence was. rejected by the trial Rlagistrate on the ground that the lease- deeds not being registered were not admissible in evidence under s. 49 of the Registration Act. The Sessie>ns Judge in appeal did not 'rely on the lease.deeds for the reason that such documents could be brought into existence at any time. Both the trial magistrate and the Sessions Judge rejected the oral evidence as unreliable because it was given by persons who were next door neighbours and as·· such interested in the appellant. The appellant's revision petition before the High Court was summarily rejected. By special leave he appealed to this Couict. HELD : ( i) Cl. 3 ( 2) of the Or\ler expressly excludes bona fide con- sumers and agriculturists from the presumption to be drawn from proof of storage. only. It is obvious that the sub-01ause speaks of storage for sale as a dealer although the words 'as a deale<' are not there because storage has reference to business as a dealer· and that is the essence of the order. The fiction in the second sub-cla~e must be- carried to its lo~c~ conclusion, [902 Bl (ii) No doi.ibt the lease-deeds were not registel'ed" but in a criminal" case it had to be seen whether they were genuine or not and whether an inference of innocence could be based on them They served the collateral purpose of showing that the> lands about which the witne8ses spoke. orally were held by him for purposes of cultiVJltion. [902 DI (iii) There is no reason why the evidence of a nex\ door neighbour should be rejected unless there is something intrinsically wrong witll it. [902 E-FJ (iv)The tOtal circumstances in the case showed that the appellant was in fact carrying on agricultural operations. He executed a number of lease-<leeds, prodl!ced receipts and proved by ocal evidence, that he· 900 SUPllEME COUllT 11.JIP()llTS [1970] 3 S.C.R. \i..as an agriculturist. In his case therefore '8e presumption under cl. A .,-·~ 3(2) could not be drawn. If that presumption was not drawn, the case ;.1gainst him stood unproved because of the exemption which agricul· turists enjoy. [902 F-G] The appeal must accordingly be allowed. Ma11/p11r Adminisratio11 v. M. Nila Ch,.rulra Singh, [1964] 5 S.C.R. 5 74, referred to and explained. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Crimital Appeal No. 40 of 1968. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 23. 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 91 of 1968. D. P. Singh, D. N. Milhra and Gm·ind Das, for the appel- lant. R. C. Prasad, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullalt, C. J. On May 28, 1966, Bhola Prasad Manda!, Supply Inspector Pathargama with other officers searched a godown belonging to Nagarmal Tekriwal (appellant) and found stored therein 45 quintals of rice, 90 quinta!s of paddy. 5-50 quintals of grains, 3 quintals of wheat, one quintal Arhar and 207 quintals of Khesari together with weighing scale and weights and measures.. As Nagarmal did not possess a licence under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealer's Licensing Order, 1966, he was pro- secuted under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of cl. 3 of the order. _He was conVicted by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.