IN RE: R. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has beenconvicted of an offence under Section 10 of the Coffee Stealing Prevention Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20 and to forfeit 17 measures of coffee. The petitioner was evidently charged with this offence because he was found carrying the coffee in th neighbourhood of an estate in the Nilgiris. He explained however that he had bought the coffee from a marchant in Mettupalayam and that he was taking it to Tanjore. Moreover, he produceed a permit in respect of the coffee which had been given him by a Mettupalayam merchant. The Stationary Sub -Magistrate of Coonoor convicted the accused on the ground that he admitted the offence, his only defence being that he was not aware of the rules. The record shows that the petitioner did not admit the offence. What he said was :

(2.) THERE was no need for the petitioner to have a pass from any Controller, and it is obvious that he did not understant in what the offence consisted. The learned Joint Magistrate of Coonoor on appeal accepted the petitioner's statement that he bought the coffee in Mettupalayam and that the permit which he produced was given to him by the vendor; but he waas of opinion that the conviction had to be confirmed because the permit which was given to the petitioners and which he produced did not have been convicted. Section 10 fo the Coffee Stealing Prevention Act states that

(3.) THE petitioner in this case committed no offence, and his convition and the sentence passed on him must be set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded and the coffee forfeited will be returned to him.