GAJRAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Gajram Singh and Ramgopal against the order and judgment dated 19-8-1976 of the First Addl. Sessions Judge of Rampur in Cr. Appeal No. 107 of 1974 confirming the order of the II Addl. Munsif-Magistrate, Rampur dated 4-8-1976 by which both the applicants were convicted under Rule 114 of the D. I. R. and each of them sentenced to four months' R. I. together with a fine of Rs, 500/and in default of payment of fine each of them was vto undergo further R. I. for two months.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 26-12-1975 S. O. Shahabad accompanied by another Sub-Inspector and the Marketing Inspectors A. K. Srivastava and H. C. Goel and some constables went on checking duty. They inspected the house of the applicants and found a rice huller established inside the house on a platform. It was in a proper working condition and some rice and husk was also found lying there. They had no licence for the same. Both the applicants were present there and they were arrested. S. I, S. W. Sid-diqi made investigation and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted. Both the applicants were duly tried for breach of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Rice Huller Order, 1975 and thus committed the offence punishable under Rule 114 of the D. I. R.

(3.) BOTH the applicants denied the prosecution allegations. The case of Gajram Singh was that he was not present at that time and -was at the school where he was a teacher. He examined three witnesses in support of this plea of alibi. The further defence of both the applicants was that it was an old huller which had been installed some 19 or 20 years back by their father and was not in a working condition. In their statement however, they made a general denial and did not take such defence plea. The trial court, however, believed the prosecution case and held that the huller was in a working condition and that both the applicants were present at the time of the checking and had thus contravened the, provisions of Section 8 of the Rice Milling Industry Regulation Act, 1958 and Section 3 of the U. P. Regulation of Rice Huller Order, 1975. It convicted and sentenced the applicants as stated above. That order was confirmed in appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have filed this revision.