S KARIAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred against the decision of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Hunsur in C.C. No.450 of 1969. In that case, the petitioner was prosecuted on two counts, (1) for the offence punishable under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act for the contravention of the provision of Clause 3 of the Mysore Food Grains (Declaration of Stocks) Order 1967; (2) that he had committed an offence under S. 7 of the Act for the contravention of the clause 8 of the Mysore Food Grams (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Order. The trying Magistrate acquitted the petitioner for the offence under the first count holding him not guilty, but he held him guilty for the offence under the second count and convicted and sentenced the petitioner under that count to pay a fine of Rs.1000 or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It is against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate under the second charge, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition in this Court.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are: That the petitioner was chargesheeted by the police of Periayapatna on the allegations that the accused-petitioner has violated the provisions of Clause 3 of the Mysore Food Grains (Declaration of stocks) Order 1967 and also the provisions of clauses 3 and 8 of the Mysore Food Grains (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 7 of the Act. It was stated that on 6-6-1969 at about 9-30 a.m. when the Sub-Inspector of Police, CID Bangalore and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID Bangalore went to the rice mill of the accused-petitioner situated at Kittor village, Periyapatna taluk, along with the panchas and others and inspected the stock of food-grains in the said rice mill, they found 2803 quintals of paddy and 119 quintals of rice in possession of the accused-petitioner, in his rice mill. The foodgrains were seized under a mahazar along with the stock registers and other documents. It was alleged by the prosecution that the accused petitioner had not given any declaration in respect of the stock held by him under the law (the subject matter of the first charge) . It was further alleged by the prosecution that the accused had not submitted fortnightly return in form No."C" as required by the provision of clause 8 of the Order.

(3.) As mentioned above, the accused has been acquitted of the offence under the first charge and this revision petition has been preferred only against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trying Magistrate which is the subject-matter of the second charge. Therefore, in this revision petition, we are concerned only with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trying Magistrate.