STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAMAGYA SHARMA VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) The respondent obtained permits under the Iron and Steel (Control0 Order, 1956 - hereinafter referred to as the Control Order - for about 28 tons of iron, including 6 tons of rods, 151/2 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 July 1957 and March 1958. The permits were obtained on three 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 Controller, Kanpur, through the District Magistrate, Deoria. In this application the respondent stated that he was a political sufferer and he was constructing a public temple for which he required five tons of M. S. Round and eight tons of Girder. He further stated that the requirements were not available at Deoria and as such the application should be considered and forwarded to the Controller for consideration and orders. It appears that this application was forwarded, duly recommended, by the District Supply Officer, Deoria, and ultimately a permit was given to him by the Controller. He made another application, dated September 7, 1957. In this application he again stated that he was a political sufferer and he was constructing a public temple and dharamshala for which he required certain quantities of iron. He further stated that the requirements were not available at Deoria and as such the application should be forwarded to the Controller. This application was also recommended and forwarded and ultimately a permit was given to him. On January 3, 1958, the accused made another application (Ex. Ka - not available in the printed record) and a permit was given to him by the District Supply Officer himself. We may mention that the original permits are not printed in the record, and, therefore, we have not been able to see for ourselves as to what are the exact conditions contained in the permits.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent after obtaining the materials sanctioned to him under the permits did not construct any temple or dharamshala building at Barhaj Bazar or at any other place. We may mention that Barhaj Bazar is the place where he lives and the applications which are in the record also mention this address.