CHIKKADODIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in these two cases is whether the convictions of the petitioners for contravention of Art. 17, Food Acquisition (Harvest) Order of 1948 by removing certain quantities of paddy on the night of 11th December 1948 without permits are correct. In ore case 10 bags of paddy were found in a double bullock cart belonging to accused 1 on the way from his village Gutte to another village Dandinadibba, at a river bed. In the other case, there were 51 bags of paddy loaded or about to be loaded in a lorry at or near the same place for the purpose of being taken to a village in another Taluk viz, Koratagere. The prosecution evidence about this and the seizure of the paddy in the course of transit outside the village is not challenged and admittedly the petitioner had no permits with them for removal of the paddy. They contended, there was no need for a permit as the paddy was intended to be taken the Government depot for disposal and even otherwise they are not culpable as the order said to have been contravened is itself ultra vires. The learned Magistrate, taking into account the place and time at which the paddy was found for being conveyed and the suspicion attaching to it, disbelieve the plea of accused that it was about to be taken to the Government depot, and held that even if it were so, the absence of a permit rendered it wrongful. The objection to the prosecution on the ground of the order not being in force at the time was rejected at and the petitioners in both cases were convicted for breach of the Food Acquisition (Harvest) Order, 1948, The sentence in each case being that of fine and not being appealable, the petitioners seek revision of the convictions. The petitions were referred to a Bench as the point involved was a of some importance and consideration of the view expressed in another case about the same.

(2.) Sri Krishnamurthy on behalf of the petitioners did not dispute the finding of fact in the two cases but attacked the convictions as illegal firstly by urging that the Food Acquisition Order was not in force on the date of the alleged offence and secondly by arguing that the acts of petitioners do not amount to a contravention of the order. In support of these contentions, the unreported decisions in criminal Reve. Petn. No. 152 of 1944-45 and criminal Revn. Petn. No. 54 of 1949-50 wherein convictions for similar acts under orders issued under Defence of India Rules were set aside, were relied upon.

(3.) The Articles of Food Acquisition Order 1948, came into force in November 1948 by virtue of a notification of Government dated 4th November 1948. It purports to have been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Rules 75A 75B and 81, Defence of India Rules as applied to Mysore and contained by the Supplies, Services and Miscelaneous Provisions (Temporary Powers) Act, XX [20] of 1947. Rule 75A provides for requisitioning of property, Rule 75B for maintenance of food supplies and under Rule 81(2). Government so far as appears to it to be necessary or expedient for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community may, by order provide (2) for regulating or prohibiting the production, treatment, keeping storage movement, transport, distribution, disposal acquisition use or consumption for articles or things of any description whatsoever. Clause (iv) of Rule. 81 says that if any person contravenes any order made under this rule he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a tem which may extend to three years or with fine or wit h both and if the order so provides the Court trying such contravention may direct the property regarding which there is contravention to be forfeited. According to Section 2(1), defence of India Act , Government may by notification in the Gazette make such rules as appear to it to be necessary or expedient.. for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. Sub-section (3) of Section states that the rules made under Sub-section (i) may further provide that. any contravention of , or any attempt to contravene and any attempt or attempt to abet the contravention of any of the provisions of the rules or any order issued under any such provision shall be punishable.