STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus RAMAGYA SHARMA VAIDYA

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 24-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
0 
J) 
E 
r 
161 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
RAMAGYA SHARMA VAIDYA 
February 24, 1965 
[K. N. W ANCHOO, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND S. M. SJKRI, JJ.] 
Iron ·and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, ct 7--0btaining permit to 
pu1·chase iron goods for specified purpose-Not using it for anu pur-
pose, whether constitwtes contravention cl. 7. 
The respondent obtained permits under the Iron and Steel 
(Control) Order, 1956 on the representation that he wanted to pur-
chase iron goods for the purpose of bwilding a temple and a dharam-
shala. '.fhe permits were obtained from .the auth~r.ities of Di~trict 
Deoria m 11.P. At the back of the permit a cond1t1on W'as prmted 
that "the materials required against the permit will be used only 
for the purpose for which it was asked for and has been given". The 
respondent was tried for the contravention of cl. 7 of the aforesaid 
order on the allegation that he had not used the goods purchased 
under the permits for the purpose for which they were issued. The 
trial Magistrate found him guilty. In appeal. however, the Sessions 
Judge acquitted him on the ground that the possitility of his retain-
ing the iron at some other place was not entirely exclooed. The 
High Court in appeal by the State confirmed the acquittal holding 
that it had not been proved that the respondent had "used" the iron 
which he had obtained on the basis of the permit. The High Court 
further held that it was not possible to look into t!ie application in 
order to see for what purpose the applicant took the permit and no 
condition actually printed at the back of the permit had been broken. 
By special leave the State appealed to the Supreme Court. 
On behalf of the appellant it was urged: (1) the word "use" in 
cl. 7 of the order includes "kept for eventual use for another purpose." 
(2) The High Cou.rt erred in holding that the application cannot be 
referred to for the purpose of construing the conditions appearing 
in the permit. 
HELD: The respondent could not be held guilty of a contraven-
tion of cl. 7 of the order. 
(i) No doubt the legislative intent of the Iron & Steel (Con,trol) 
G Order is that this essential commodity should be utilised in accordance 
witli the conditions contained in the permit, but no clause in the 
Control Order in question evinces a legislative intent that a mere 
non-user is also prohibited and made punishable. fl65 Hl 
The word 'use' must take its colour from the context in which 
it is used. In cl. 7 the expression "use ... in accordance with the condi-
tions contained" suggests something done positively e.g. utilisation 
H or disposal. Mere "non-use" is not included in the word 
"use". 
fl65 Dl 
(ii) The High Court was wrong in holding that it is not petrnissi-
ble to look at the application. to determine the purpose for which 
permit is attained. However in the present case the applications 
did not disclose· that the respondent wanted to build a temple or 
dharamshala at any particular place. From the mere fact that the 
applications were made to the authorities in Deoria District, or the 
fact that in the applications ·it was mentioned that the goods were 
not available in Deoria District, it did not necessarily follow that the 
goods were intendPd to be used in that District. fl66 Hl 
162 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
[1965) 3 S.C.R. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 60 
A 
of 1963. 
Appeal by special ieave from the judgment and order dated 
August 24, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Government 
· Appeal No. 1379 of 1962. 
B. C. Misra and 0. P. Rana, for the appellant. 
J. P. Goyal, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the_ Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal of 
the State against the judgment of the Sessions Judge allowing the 
appeal of the respondent and acquitting him. 
The respondent obtained permits .under the Iron and Steel 
(Control) Order, 1956--hereinafter . referred to as the Control 
Order-for about 28 tons of iron, including 6 tons of rods, 15! 
tons of joints and 2 tons of G.C. Sheets. He is alleged to have 
purchased these articles on the basis of the above permits between 
B 
c 
July 1957 and March 1958. The permits were obtained on three 
D 
·applications made by the respondent. 
Only two applications are 
in the printed record. The first application is dated May 23, 1957. 
and is addressed to the Provincial Iron and Steel Control

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