JESHINGBHAI NATHUBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 1968 is brought by the two appellants who were original accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 2095 of 1967. The material facts out of which this appeal arises may be shortly stated.

(2.) On 19th September 1967 at about 4 A. M. complainant Rhematkhan who is a Head Constable attached to the Monogram Chowkey was on patrol duty along with three constables including one Somabhai. When they came to a place near Cross roads adjacent to Amritlal Estate they found one truck bearing No. GTD 2811 coming from O. K. Karkhana side. The truck was detained and on enquiry it was found that the truck was driven by accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 was found sitting by the side of the driver. We are not concerned with accused Nos. 4 and 5 who have been acquitted. There were 60 bags of paddy weighing more than 4200 kilograms. As neither accused No. 1 nor accused No. 2 had any pass or permit to bring the paddy bags within the limits of the city of Ahmedabad the police seized that truck and the paddy bags therein and thereafter a case was filed against the two appellants for having contravened the provisions of Rule 4 of the Gujarat Rice (Export Control) and Paddy (Movement Control) Order 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) as amended by the Notification No. GTH 121(A)/NCA 11469742 dated October 13 1966 The contravention of that Rule 4 in the above Order is made punishable under sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) which provides not only for punishment of imprisonment and fine to the offender but also for the penalty of the confiscation of the material in respect of which the offence is committed and of the receptacles or the conveyance in which the said material is carried. The appellant No. 1 admitted that he was in the truck but his case was that he wanted to go to Kapadvanj and as this truck was going to Lambha he was permitted by the owner of the said truck to sit in the said truck. Appellant No. 2 stated that he was driving the truck on hire at the instance of Dasrathbhai and that he had committed no offence.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate convicted each of the two appellants for the contravention of Rule 4 of the Order and he sentenced appellant No. 1 to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/in default to suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. He also sentenced appellant No. 2 to two months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/in default one months rigorous imprisonment. He also ordered confiscation of the paddy as well as the truck in which the paddy was being carried. The original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have filed Cri. Appeal No. 516 of 1968 against the order of their conviction and sentence; while Cri. Appeal No. 531 of 1968 is filed by original accused No. 5 and one minor Satishbhai Jivabhai who claim to be the manager and owner respectively of the said truck and their appeal is directed against the order of confiscation of the vehicle to the Government.