P L D 1960 Dacca 943 (PLP)

2. The accusations against the petitioner were: (a) that he, on or about 1‑5‑57 to 25‑2‑58, at Kalighat, police -station Kotwali, did not maintain or grant voucher of his purchase of rice and paddy and thereby contravened clause 6 (a) of the East Bengal Food‑Stuffs Price Control and Anti‑Hoarding Order, 1953, and thereby committed an offence under section 6 (1) of Act I of 1956. (b) that he on or about 1‑5‑57 to 13‑6‑57 at Kalighat, hoarded stock of rice and paddy purchased by holding it for more than 7 days at one place in violation of clause 2 of the East Bengal Food‑Stuffs Price Control and Anti‑Hoarding Order, 1953, as amended by Notification No. 8015 FD, dated 10‑2‑56, and thereby committed an offence under section 6 (1) of Act I of 1956. (c) that he carried a stock of 359 mds. 8 ch. of paddy to Savar in the district of Dacca in violation of his licence issued under the East Bengal Anti‑Hoarding Order, 1953, and thereby committed an offence under section 6 (1) of Act I of 1956. The learned Magistrate found him guilty in respect of the charges of hoarding paddy for more than 7 days. With regard to the other two charges he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that on the face of the accusation it is apparent that the trial of the petitioner was held in clear violation of the provision of section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that so far as the first charge is concerned it clearly indicates that the petitioner was proceeded against for: more than one act of omission or com mission. On the authority of the decision in the case of Queen Empress v. Mati Lal Lahiri (I L R 27 Cal. 560), it was submitted that each such act of omission or commission would amount to an offence as contemplated under section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and since the first charge was in regard to more than one such offence, the same taken together with the other two charges would constitute more than three offences and, therefore, the trial was held in disregard of the provisions of section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case just mentioned, Prinsep and Stanley, JJ., of the Calcutta High Court observed as follows :‑-- "As to the second objection, more serious considerations arise. In place of the charge of criminal breach of trust the accused is charged with a general falsification of his accounts for a period extending from May 1894, to October 1896. No particulars whatever of any falsification are specified, but the accused is put upon his trial on a vague and general allegation of his accounts during a period of nearly two years and a half. It would seem to us that the charge was in all probability framed with the object of relieving, if possible, the prosecution from the obliga tion which lay upon them in respect of the charges under section 409 of proving specific acts of misappropriation. Has it done so ? We think not. Every act of falsification of a book of account, in our opinion, would amount to an offence under the Code under section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." Clause 6 (a) of the East Bengal Foodstuffs Price Control and Anti- Hoarding Order, 1953, reads as follows: "The Provincial Government may require a trader to maintain true accounts relating to such transactions in such manner and form as the Provincial Government may prescribe." Now, having regard to the first accusation under the first head, there can be no doubt that the petitioner was charged for acts of omission or commission in respect of more than one transaction. In our view, each such omission or commission would amount to an offence under clause 6 (a) of the East Bengal Foodstuffs Price Control and Anti‑Hoarding Order, 1953, and so he was charged under that head for more than one offence.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has not attempted to argue that in view of the accusation it can be said that the petitioner was charged in respect of three offences only. It is, therefore, patent that the trial was held in violation of section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, this is a fit case in which a writ of certiorari should issue quashing the conviction.

5. The Rule, therefore, is made absolute and we direct that the order of conviction of the petitioner by the learned Magistrate be cancelled and quashed. In view of the facts of this case, we direct that each party will bear its own costs. ISPAHANI, C. J.‑I agree. K. B. A. Rule made absolute.