MANI THAMSUDEEN AND MANICKAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED 1 is the appellant in C. A. 575 of 84 and ACCUSED 2 and 3 are the appellants in C. A. 576 of 84. ACCUSED 1 is a native of Attur in Salem District. ACCUSED 2 and 3 are the driver and cleaner of the lorry TNL 8795. The appellants stood charged for an offence under Cl. 4 (1) of Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974, read with S. 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential commodities Act, 1955, before the Special Court, Essentia ! commodities Act cases, Thanjavur , on the allegation that on 14th January, 1984, at about 4. 20 a. m , the three appellants were found in the lorry TNL 8795, driven by the second appellant, and it was proceeding from Thiruvannainallur in South Arcot District to Salem District via. , Arasur. When the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, c. I. D. , South Arcot , wanted the lorry to be stopped near the Panchayat Union office at Thiruvannainallur , ACCUSED 2 did not stop the lorry but proceeded towards Salem and at Alankuppam Railway level cross gate, the lorry was intercepted after a hard chase when it stopped because of the closing of the gate. The Inspector of Police found the three appellants in the lorry and 126 bags of paddy, which were being transported from Thiruvanainallur to Salem for doing business in paddy and to get wrongful gain. There was no movement authorisation certificate or lorry clearance certificate for transportation of the paddy. Accordingly, the appellants were found to have violated Cl. 4 (1) of Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974, read with S. 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) SIX witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. P. W. 2 Thiru Subramanian of Pallaripalayam has deposed about the arrangement for purchase of paddy on behalf of the first appellant and the actual of paddy by first appellant at Thiruvannainallur. P. W. 1 Thiru Venkatapathy of Thiruvannainallur , who is a Railway gate keeper, has deposed about the fact that on 13th January, 1984 night he was working as gate keeper at the Railway level crossing at Alankuppam , and he closed the gate at about 4. 20 a. m. to allow Nellai Express to go. At that time, an Ambassador car TMU 7207 came, overtaking the lorry TNL 8795 which could not proceed further because of the closure of the gate. In the lorry, the appellants were seen and the second appellant was driving the lorry. P. W. 1 also stated that when the lorry was checked by the police, 126 bags of paddy were found and the police seized the same under a mahazar Ex. P1, attested by himself and one Mani. He further stated that the police took a statement from the first appellant and thereafter, the police took the appellants and the lorry.

(3.) THE point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the contravention of C1. 4 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974, read with S. 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, has been clearly established by the prosecution, warranting conviction of the appellants.