HASHIM ULLAH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These "are 16 revisions in which the applicants have been convicted under Sec. 7 of the" Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act 24 of 1946) for contravention of Rule 3(iv) of the U.P. Food Grains (movement) Control Order, 1949, and have been sentenced to three month's rigorous imprisonment each. As all these cases arise out of similar facts and the questions involved in them are common I propose to decide them together by one judgment.

(2.) It appears that on the 4th January, 1951, Sri Sonahri Lal, Senior Marketing Inspector, Barhani, got information that some persons were contemplating to transport grain from Gonda district to Basti district without permit after crossing Suwan Nala near village Sehari. On receipt of this information he took some Sub -Inspectors and police constables with him and reached the village Sehari at about 4 a.m. on the 5th January, 1951. He also had some witnesses with him. At about 9 a.m. the party detected the applicants taking maize in bullock carts from Goods side to Basti district after crossing the Nala. The applicants were arrested and the maize which was loaded on the bullock carts was siezed. A recovery list was prepared and then they along with the property were taken to the police station where a report was lodged against them. After further investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the applicants on the 6th January, 1951. This was a joint charge sheet against all the applicants. This charge sheet did not mention the provision of the U.P. Food Grains (movement) Control Order which had been contravened by the applicants. In view of this defect the applicants were discharged on the 16th July, 1951, by Sri M.P. Pandey, Sub divisional Magistrate, Domariaganj. Later on a fresh charge -sheet mentioning the facts which constituted the offence and also the provisions of the Foodgrains (movements) Control Order which had been contravened and the offence which had been committed was submitted on 23rd September 1951. This was also a joint charge -sheet against all the applicants. After this charge -sheet was submitted the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued summonses to the applicants to appear before him and fixed a date for the recording of evidence. On the date fixed for the evidence the Prosecuting Sub -Inspector made a request to the learned Magistrate that the cases of the different applicants might be separated and that they should be tried summarily. This request was accepted by the learned Magistrate on 13th February, 1952 and their cases were separated and they were each tried summarily. The learned Magistrate found each of the applicants guilty under Sec. 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravention of Rule 3(iv) of the U.P. Foodgrains (movement) Control Order of 1949 for transporting prohibited grain from Gonda District to Basti district without a permit. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced each of them as stated above.

(3.) The first contention on behalf of the applicants was that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the cases as there was no compliance of Sec. 11 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. This Sec. runs as follows: