JAYALAKSHMI TRADING CO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter involved in this Criminal Revision Petition is wholly covered by the decision of this Court in CrRP.296 of 1974, rendered on 20-9-1974, as contended by Sri C.N.Kamath, learned Advocate for the revision petitioner (accused). The learned Public Prosecutor is unable to distinguish that ruling. He, however, had one doubt, viz., that while Cls(2j)& 3 of the Karnataka Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order 1966 refer to 'paddy' and not to 'rice', the commodity in question in the instant case is 'rice' and not 'paddy'. Sri Kamath, however, has set this doubt wholly at rest by producing today before me Order No.FFD 78 RPR 75, d|.3rd June 1975, issued by the Food and Forest Secretariat of this State and published in the Karnataka Gazette (Exty) d/.4-6-1975, Part IV 2-C(ii).

(2.) The aforesaid Order contains only two Sections. Cl(l) of S.1 gives the nomenclature of the Order, and C1(2) thereof says that the Order comes ink- force at once. S.2 stayled as Amendment of C1(8A) reads : In C1 (8A) of the Karnataka Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1966, after the words 'No person shall purchase any paddy the words 'or rice' shall be inserted. Thus as represented by Sri Kamath, 'paddy' and 'rice' have been treated as identical only from 3-6-1975. It follows that 'rice which was seized in the instant case, could not be seized on 22-2-1974 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sira, as at that time 'rice' and 'paddy' were not synonymous. The seizure of the rice, therefore, by the PSI was ex-facie unwarranted and illegal.

(3.) This revision petition is allowed and the order of confiscation of the 85 bags of rice passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tumkur, is set aside. The bags of rice will be returned to the petitioners (accused) forthwith.