LAWS(KAR)-1975-10-9

CHANNEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On October 23, 1975
CHANNE GOWDA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the conviction and sentence, passed on 30-10-1974 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunigal, in C.C. No. 7 of 1972. The petitioner has been convicted under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) for contravening Clause 3 of Karnataka Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1966, (to be hereinafter referred to as the Order) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the petitioner grew paddy in the year 1970-71 in Sy. Nos. 442, 503, 504, 505, 272, 360, 270 and 266 of Kothagere-Amanikere, Taluka Kunigal. He was to pay levy to the State Government. Hence, P.W. 2 T. N. Siddananjappa, the Enforcement Officer, issued levy demand notice as per Ex.P. 12 on 20-7-1971 calling upon the petitioner to sell 7.50 quintals of paddy within a week therefrom. The petitioner did not comply with Ex. P. 12 and, hence, P.W. 1 S. G. Gunaga, the Tahsildar, complained to the police and the police prosecuted the petitioner.

(3.) The defence of the petitioner is that Ex. P. 12 was never served on him, and hence, he was not liable to pay levy to the State Government and as such he has, not contravened Clause-3 of the Order. The prosecution has examined PW.1 the Tahsildar, PW.2 the Enforcement Officer, P.W. 3 R. C Ghale, the investigating Officer and P. W. 4 T. Prahlada Rao, retired village accountant. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 3 is not of material consequence in this case. P.W. 2 has sworn that he issued Ex. P. 12 and it was served on Honna- giri Gowda, son of the petitioner. P.W. 4 has sworn that Honnagiri Gowda, son of the petitioner, and the petitioner are living jointly and that Ex. P. 12 was served on Honnagiri Gowda. Now it is to be seen whether service of Ex.P. 12 on Honnagiri Gowda is service according to law so as to hold that the petitioner had been served with Ex 12 and he failed to comply with its requirements.