R. NATESAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by accused 3 to 5 in S.T.C. No. 239 of 1970 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, who were convicted under Section (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3 -A of Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, 1964 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 each, by the Additional First Class Magistrate. Accused 1 and 2 who were also convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 each, have not challenged the conviction.

(2.) THE prosecution case is briefly this: P.W. 2 Natarajan, the Sub -Inspector of Police (Food Cell) C.I.D., Nagercoil, was patrolling the belt area in Kanyakumari District at a place called Padmanabhapuram at about 5 A.M., on 25th March, 1970. P.W.1, Hasan Mian, a Police constable, attached to the Food Cell was also with P.W. 2. They saw a lorry M.D.U. 8834 (M.O.1) coming on the road from south to north. P.W. 2 intercepted that lorry and checked it. Accused 1 to 5 were all in the lorry. Accused 1 was the driver and accused 2 was the cleaner. Accused 3 was the owner of the paddy. Accused 4 and 5 were coolies engaged for loading and unloading the rice bags. The lorry was loaded with 85 bags of paddy. The accused had no permit to transport paddy in the belt area. P.W. 2, therefore, recovered the paddy bags and seized the lorry. The paddy bags were handed over to the Special Deputy Tahsildar (R) Warehouse Nagercoil. P.W. 3,. Gopalakrishnan, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records stated that the place where the lorry was intercepted is about II miles from the nearest point of the Kerala border.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate held that the accused were transporting paddy bags within the belt area without permit and found all the accused guilty for having contravened Clause 3 -A of the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, 1964. 85 bags of paddy seized by the Police were forfeited to the State. So far as the lorry was concerned, the learned Magistrate stated in his judgment that it would be disposed of after holding a separate enquiry.