RAM AUTAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Applicant was prosecuted Under Para. 9 of the UP Cement Control Order, 1955 for breach of Para, 3 thereof.

(2.) AN application was made on behalf of the Applicant before the learned Magistrate on 4 -5 -1965, stating that even if the facts disclosed in the first information report, the charge sheet and the documents Under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure be taken at their face value and conceded to be correct, no offence against the Applicant was made out. From the application, it appears that the contention was that Clause 3 of the UP Cement Control Order comes into play only when cement is imported in a district, but the prosecution case being that the trucks carrying cement were intercepted and seized while they were still in district Garhwal, on the prosecution case itself no offence Under Clause 9 could be made out. The prayer made was as follows:

(3.) THIS revision is consequently allowed and the order dated 22 -6 -1965, passed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Garhwal and that of the learned Magistrate dated 14 -6 -1965, are set aside. It will be open to the learned Magistrate to decide whether on the facts of the instant case he would like to act Under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not. The stay order dated 11 -8 -1965, granted by this Court is vacated.