KITTANNA RAI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court was the accused in Summary Trial Case No. 828 of 1967 in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur, South Kanara. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 3-A of the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, 1964, read with Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75, in default to undergo S. I. for three weeks. In this revision, he challenges the legality and correctness of the said conviction and sentence passed on him.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 8-10-67 at about 5,30 A.M., when P. W. 3. the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Food Mobile Squad was patrolling the border area, he found the accused in a locality called Kemmethadka, transporting about 30 Kgs. of boiled rice in a gunny bag. He asked the accused whether he had a permit to transport the rice to Kerala State. As the accused did not possess any permit to transport the rice, he seized the same under the Yadast Exhibit P-3 in the presence of P. W. 2 Gopala Krishna Rao, a Panch witness.

(3.) It has been contended by Sri Suvarna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the prosecution has not proved that the accused had committed any offence under Section 3-A of the Southern (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, which will be hereinafter referred to as the order. It is argued that the prosecution has not proved that the accused transported the rice from any place in the border area to any place outside the border area; nor has the prosecution proved that the accused transported rice from any place inside the village or town in the border area, to any place outside the village or town, in the border area. It is stressed that under the 4th proviso to Section 3-A, it would be an offence only if rice is transported from inside a village or town in the border area to any place outside the village or town, or from; one village or town to another village or town in the border area. It is contended that the prosecution evidence does not show that the accused transported the rice from one town to another town or from inside the town to any place outside the town. The accused was caught in the village of Kemmethadaka. The prosecution has not let in any evidence to show that the accused was taking the rice from Kemmethadka to any other village or town. Sri Suvarna also contends that even if the prosecution evidence is accepted, at worst, it only shows that there was preparation to commit an offence, but not an attempt to commit an offence. Sri Suvarna has strongly relied on a decision of this Court in Baburao Balwant Kurubet v. State of Mysore 1961-39 Mys LJ 742 : 1962 (1) Cri LJ 830 in support of his said contention. He has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab Cr. A. 186/66 reported in Short Notes of Supreme Court cases in Mysore Law Journal Part dated 23-1-1969 at page 6.