IN RE: GOPAL NAIDU AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED 1, 3 and 4 who are the petitioners were convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Sankari under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules read with Rule 221 of the Defence of India Rules for attempting to transport rice bran and fried Bengal gram outside the district without a permit. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and accused 3 and 4 to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. The first accused is the owner of the lorry in which the commodities were attempted to be transported. Accused 3 is the driver of the lorry and accused 4 is the cleaner and brother of accused 1. On appeal, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Namakkal, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the lower Court.

(2.) THERE is nothing that can be said in favour of the petitioners on the merits. But the learned advocate for them raised a point as to the jurisdiction of the Second Class Magistrate to try the case. The decision turns oh the Defence of India Act, read with the rules thereunder. Section 2, Sub -section (3) of the Act says:

(3.) THE contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that Section 2, Sub -section (3) of the Act mentions only the arrest and trial of persons contravening any of the rules. It does not indicate that the rules may provide for the trial of persons attempting to contravene any of the rules. But in my opinion the combined result of Rules 81(2) and 121 which are the relevant rules for the purpose of this case is to make a person charged with the offence of attempting to contravene any of the orders made under Rule 81(2), a person contravening the rules. There is, therefore, no scope for invoking the general jurisdiction under Code of Criminal Procedure in this case. I overrule the objections taken on behalf of the petitioners that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try this case.