IN RE: ARUNACHALA MUDALIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of North Arcot Division at Vellore, dismissing C.A. No. 357 of 1975 and confirming the order of the Collector of North Arcot, confiscating the lorry MDJ. 2104 belonging to the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE Special Tahsildar (P), Tiruvannamalai, who was on patrol duty on 22nd July, 1975, noticed the lorry MDJ 2104 proceeding along Kilpunathur -Avalurpet road at a distance of one kilometre beyond Kattukulam check post at about 1:30 a.m. and intercepted it and found 50 bags of paddy loaded in the lorry. The driver had no permit for transport of the paddy from Tiruvannamalai town to Gingee. The trip sheet of the lorry was not written up. The lorry and the paddy bags were seized by the tahsildar under cover of a mahazar and the paddy was deposited in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies, Corporation godown at Tiruvannamalai. The lorry was kept at Kilpennathur guarded by the police. Subsequently, the lorry was handed over to the revision petitioner on the orders of this Court. A notice under S. 6 -B of the Essential Commodities Act was issued by the Collector calling upon the revision petitioner to make his representation in writing within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice against the ground of confiscation mentioned in the notice. I must straightway say that this notice has been issued by filling up the gaps in a cyclostyled form and, therefore, in a mechanical manner and the satisfaction expressed therein does not appear to be a satisfaction arrived at by taking into consideration the facts of the instant case, but a satisfaction pre -existing in the sense that the satisfaction has been expressed in a cyclostyled form kept ready for use in all such cases irrespective of the merits and demerits of each case. After issue of the notice, the owner of the lorry made a representation in writing contending that he had no knowledge of the transport of the paddy, that the driver was employed only a week prior to 23rd July, 1975, that he had specifically instructed the driver and the cleaner of the lorry not to transport any essential commodity unless covered by a permit and that he has subsequently terminated their services. The driver of the lorry stated that he joined duty as a driver only on the day prior to the occurrence, that the paddy belonged to one Velu, that he transported paddy from the Bungalow Mill of Tiruvannamalai town to his village which is at a distance of about four of five miles near Somasipaddi village and that the owner of the lorry was not aware of the transport. The cleaner also gave a similar statement. Velur the owner of the paddy, filed a statement contending that the 50 bags of I.R.8 paddy, were taken for sale at Tiruvannamalai, that at Tiruvannamalai he was informed that money for the paddy bags will be paid only after sale, that as he needed money immediately he proceeded to Ginjee to effect the sales and that he did so because he was made to understand that there was no prohibition against an agriculturist selling his produce anywhere within the State of Tamil Nadu. The Collector, however, was of the opinion that the owner "has not proved that all reasonable and necessary precautions have been taken against the use of lorry for such illicit movements. The version of the driver and the cleaner that it was transported to a village near Somasipadi is purely an afterthought and this version is not supported by the owner of the stock, (who says that the stock was transported to Gingee for sale). Even if it were a fact, then the trip sheet should have been written for the said movement. But this was not done in the present case. The owner of the paddy bags stated that it is the produce of their lands taken for sale at Tiruvannamalai and then to Gingee as money was not readily available at Tiruvannamalai. But his contention that there was no restriction for sale of paddy anywhere in the State is not correct. Enquiry revealed that Thiru Velu owns 5.42 acres of irrigable dry lands in Durginammiyananda village in a joint family and he cultivated only an extent of 0.80 acre under Navari crop. But he had not tendered the levy due to Government. It is hardly believable that 50 bags of paddy were derived from such a small extent of 0.80 acre. The plea that the seized stock is the produce of Thiru K. Velu is, therefore, rejected. In this case, the seized stock wag transported from the Rice Mill at Thiruvannamalai to Gingee of South Arcot District at dead of night through circuitous route avoiding the check -post and without making entries in the trip sheet and also without permit. The Special Tahsildar (Procurement) Tiruvannamalai has reported that a taxi was going ahead of the lorry leading this lorry upto the level -crossing on the Tiruvannamalai -Tindivanam Road, The Special Tahsildar chased the lorry in his jeep and cheeked it near the district border check -post at Kattukulam and found 50 bags of paddy in the lorry transported outside this district without transport permit as required under Cl.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1970. It is, therefore, evident that this is a preplanned plot to illicitly transport outside this district the stock of 50 bags of paddy unauthorisedly purchased at Tiruvannamalai and stored in the rice mill at Tiruvannamalai. "The Collector refused to accept the contention of the owner of the lorry that he had instructed the driver and the cleaner not to transport essential commodity unless covered by permit. He was of the opinion that the owner of the lorry has not proved that, all reasonable and necessary precautions have been taken against the use of lorry for such illicit movements." He therefore, held that the provisions of Cl.3 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1970, and Cl. 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1970, issued under S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, had been contravened. Consequently, he directed the confiscation of the lorry.

(3.) IN Nuthulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 43 Subba Rao, J. as he then was, has, in laying down the law, observed as follows: -