RAMAKRISHNA REDDIAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the petitioners (accused) in these two revision petitions are different since the facts in both of them are similar and the prosecutions have been launched on the foot of a common sanction order and as a common question of law arises, both the revision petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) RAMAKRISHNA Reddiar, the accused in C.C. 256 of 1974 and Kumarayya Reddiar, the accused in C.C. 257 of 1974, both on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, have preferred Crl. R.C. 364 of 1975 and 392 of 1975 respectively, questioning the correctness and legality of the judgments rendered in Crl. App. No. 47 of 1974 and 46 of 1974 respectively by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the conviction under S. 3(1) of the Pondicherry Paddy and Rice Distribution and Requisition of Stocks Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 1967 -Order) read with S. 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the sentence to suffer imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 300, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months (in each case) but setting aside the order of the trial Magistrate confiscating the paddy seized in excess of the minimum quantity of 40 quintals per individual, permitted to be stocked without any declaration as per the provisions of the order and directing the return of the paddy in kind or its value.

(3.) SINCE the entire facts in both the cases are not necessary for the decision of the legal point raised in these two petitions, it would be suffice for me to refer only to the gist of the offence which led to the prosecutions.