IN RE: UNNI ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision case is filed by accused 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Accused No. 1 is a driver. Accused No. 2 accompanied A1 in the lorry. Accused No. 3 is a wholesale merchant in Kerala State. Accused No. 4 is a lorry owner. Accused No 5 is a wholesale rice merchant in Coimbatore. Accused No. 6 is an Assistant in Taluk Office, Coimbatore. A5 was acquitted by the Appellate Court and A2 is dead. Therefore, this Revision is only in respect of accused 1, 3, 4 and 6.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: Ail the accused along with P.Ws.2 and 3 who were employees of A5, entered into a conspiracy in order to move 110 bags of rice from Coimbatore to Thiruvarankudi in Kerala State. The purchase was made from Nagappa Rice Mill at Goundanpalayam. Though the purchase was by A3, it was made to appear as if it was made by A5. After the purchase, P.W. 3 along with A1 and A2 proceeded towards Velandavalam in the lorry, loaded with the rice. By 3:30 a.m. on 26 -5 -1978 near Velandavalam Check -post, a Herald car came in the opposite direction and a person waved his hands from that car in the direction of the lorry. A1 stopped the lorry thinking that he was one of the persons in the conspiracy. P.W. 7, who is the Deputy Tahsildar, enquired A2 as to what the load consisted of. Then, P.W. 4, City Distribution Officer, came from the other side, got into the cabin of the lorry, put off the engine and took the ignition key and was busy checking the lorry. In the meanwhile, P.W. 5 the District Supply officer informed P.W. 7, about the nature of the cargo, came out of the car. Despite the absence of the ignition key A1 somehow managed to again, start the lorry, which proceeded with P.W. 4 inside. The latter attempted to stop the lorry, but was prevented from doing so by A1 and A2. The lorry driven at a high speed, dashed against the barricade at Velandavalam Check -post and proceeded without stopping towards Kerala State with the load of rice. After proceeding for about 12 kilometres, the lorry slowed down. P.W. 4 was pushed out of the lorry. When he got up, he was able to notice, the number of the lorry and it appeared to him as TNA 3057. P.W. 5 endeavoured to chase the lorry with the Herald car, but in vain.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the grounds of revision put forth by the accused, it is necessary to have a clear idea of the charges. The first charge is against A1 and A6 for ah offence under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The second charge is against A1 and A2 for an offence under S. 342, I.P.C. in respect of P.W. 4. The third charge is against A1 and A2 for an offence under S. 353. I.P.C. in respect of P.W. 4. The fourth charge is against A1 for an offence under S. 427, I.P.C. in respect of the damage caused to the barricade of the check -post. The fifth, charge in against A1 and A2 for an offence under S. 307, I.P.C. in respect of P.W. 4. That charge was dropped by the Trial Court and we are not concerned with that now. The sixth charge is against A3 for an offence under S. 4(1) of the Order read with S. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential, Commodities Act. The seventh charge is against A1, A2, A4 and A5 and A6 in respect of the same provisions read with S. 109, I.P.C. The eighth charge is against A3 for offence under Cls.5(1) and 14(1) of the Order read with S. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The ninth charge is against A1, A2, A4 and A6 in respect of the same provisions of law read with S. 109, I.P.C. The tenth charge is against A5 and we are not concerned with that.