KANDASWAMI GOUNDAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cases can be disposed of by a common judgment, as the point arising in be to of them is identical. I shall first of all deal with Ori. R. C, no. 12b7 of 1947 which arises out of 0. 0. No. 410 of 1917 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Pollachi. The sole accused in that case was convicted by the trial Court of an offence under Section 7 (2) of the Central Act, XXIV [24] of 1946 for selling paddy to a person other than the Collector or his agent, This conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, and the aggrieved party cornea up in revision. In Cri. B. 0. No. 1307 of 1947 the three petitioners were the accused in 0, 0. No. 499 of 1947 in the Court of the same Additional First Class Magistrate, Pollachi. They were the purchasers of the quantity of paddy from the accused in the previous case and were convicted of an offence under the same section of the same Act. for transporting paddy without a permit.

(2.) THOUGH in the lower Courts the petitioners in be to the cases questioned the credibility of the prosecution evidence and denied the actions attributed to them, in this Court the counsel in each of these cases has wisely not attempted to do so. I agree with the lower Court that the sale and transport of paddy as alleged by the prosecution are be to true occurrences.

(3.) BUT the question is whether there was a contravention of S 7 (1) of the Central Act. The circumstances that led up to the contravention are that by Order No. 467 dated 15th June 1947 promulgated under 8. 81 (2), Defence of India Rules then in force, the Collector of Coimbatore bad prohibited the sale of paddy to any person other than an authorised dealer or himself. It is now proved beyond doubt whatever, that the peti- tioners in Cri, R. C. NO. 1807 of 194t are not autherised dealers at all and therefore the sale of paddy to them contravened the order of the Collector. As is well known, the Defence of India Rules expired on 30th September 1946 and were replaced by Ordinance no. XVIII [18] of 1946 by which certain provisions of the Defence of India Rules were oontinned. This Ordinance, again, was substituted by Central Act xxiv [24] of 1946 passed in November of that year. The question is whether the contravention of the Collector's Order no. 467 can be said to be an offence under Section 7 (1) of the Central Act.