IN RE: T.C. KANDASWAMY CHETTIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appears to be a case which, in the words of Singleton J., in a recent case in the King's Bench Division, " is very much easier to argue than one in which to give judgment."

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules read with Clause 2 of the Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1943, and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 150. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the conviction was confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already served and the sentence of fine was upheld. The petitioner seeks to revise the said decision of the Sessions Judge.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge says that the object of the order was to see that in machines of the single huller type rice shall be passed through the huller only once. There was no evidence in the case that the petitioner was passing paddy through the huller more than once.