IN RE: M. KASI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a lorry drives. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was driving the lorry K.L. P. 2035 with 51 bags of rice at Gopalapuram Check -post. He was check -mated there and arrested by P.W. 1, who lodged a complaint Ex. P. 4 before the Sub -Inspector of police, P.W.2. This occurrence has taken place on 10th June, 1968 at 10. 30 A.M. Rejecting the plea of the accused -petitioner both the courts below have convicted the petitioner for violating Clause 3 of the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order 1964, read with S. 7(1) (a) (II) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Admittedly, the Gopalapuram check -post is just about a furlong east of the boundary between the two States. Clause 3 reads as follows:

(2.) THE Learned Public prosecutor fairly concedes on the basis of the rationale found in the judgment in Jacco v. State Cr. R. C. 887 of 1969 and also Mallkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1970 M. L. J. Cri. 846 that ines -much as there was just about a furlong east of the boundary between the two States where exactly the petitioner was stepped, namely, the Gopalapuram check -post, the petitioner may have been swayed by locus penitential and, therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner exported of attempted to export or abet the export of rice from a place within the specified area to a place outside that area. At any rate, the evidence admits of a reasonable doubt which may be given in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is requited. The revision at allowed. The value of the seized property at the market rate prevailing on the date of seizure is directed to be returned to the petitioner.