1963 (11) TMI 78 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies dealer definition in food storage case

MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION Versus M. NILA CHANDRA SINGH

The Supreme Court interpreted cl. 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, in a case involving a respondent charged under the ... - Issues:Construction of cl. 3(2) of the Manipur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958.Detailed Analysis:The case involved a respondent charged under the Essential Commodities Act for storing paddy without a license. The lower courts convicted the respondent based on the presumption arising under cl. 3(2) of the Order. However, the Judicial Commissioner allowed the respondent's Revision Application, holding that the presumption under cl. 3(2) does not automatically make a person a dealer. The issue before the Supreme Court was the construction of cl. 3(2) of the Order (Para. 1-6).The definition of a 'dealer' under cl. 2(a) requires continuity of transactions in the business of purchase, sale, or storage of specified commodities in quantities of 100 maunds or more at any one time. The concept of business implies a series of transactions, not isolated instances. The requirement of 100 maunds applies to all dealings with the specified commodities, excluding retail transactions of less than 100 maunds (Para. 7-9).Forms prescribed by the Order support the interpretation that a dealer must be engaged in continuous business activities of purchase, sale, or storage. The forms emphasize the need for continuity and business operations, not sporadic transactions (Para. 10-11).Clause 3(1) prohibits carrying on business as a dealer without a license. The statutory presumption under cl. 3(2) can be rebutted by showing storage for personal needs or legitimate reasons unrelated to sales. However, the presumption does not establish the element of business required under cl. 3(1). The prosecution must provide additional evidence to prove business activities beyond the presumption (Para. 12-15).The argument that the presumption under cl. 3(2) should suffice to prove the business element is rejected. The Court emphasizes strict construction of penal clauses and notes that the presumption is limited to the storage being for the purpose of sale, not for conducting a business (Para. 16-18).The Court considers the possibility that cl. 3(2) was drafted to exclude cases of cultivators possessing large quantities of foodgrains for occasional sale or storage. Despite policy considerations, the wording of cl. 3(2) does not support the prosecution's case that the respondent is a dealer under cl. 3(1). Therefore, the charge under the Essential Commodities Act is not proven, leading to the acquittal upheld by the Judicial Commissioner (Para. 19-20).