STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K M KRISHNATAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated November 20, 1974, upholding the judgment of the Sessions Judge of South Kanara dated July 16, 1974, setting aside the conviction of respondent Krishnaiah for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the sentence thereunder. The respondent was a grower of paddy, and it was alleged against him that while he grew paddy in 7.12 acres of land, and was liable to sell 3.12 quintals by way of levy, he ignored the demand notice which was served on him on October 28, 1971 and thereby contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of the Karnataka Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order.

(2.) The Sessions Judge took the view that it was only the "Purchase Officer" to whom the paddy was required to be sold, and that as the demand for the levy was made by the Enforcement Officer it was unauthorised. It is however not in dispute before us that the Sessions Judge lost sight of the newly promulgated Karnataka Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Levy Order, clause 3 of which provided for the sale of paddy to the Enforcement Officer by way of levy. But it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that, even so there was no evidence to show that the demand notice was signed by an Enforcement Officer. Our attention has been invited in this connection to that part of the judgment of the Sessions Judge where it has been stated that as the accused had challenged the appointment of the person who had issued the demand notice as the Enforcement Officer, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the appointment and that, in absence of any such proof, there is no occasion for taking a different view of the matter.

(3.) Clause 2 (c) of the Levy Order defines "Enforcement Officer" to mean