RAM ASREY Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal revisions were filed in the Chief Court of Avadh on 15th December 1947. Application No. 154 is made by Ram Asrey and Gaya Prasad while No. 155 is made by Ram Asrey alone.

(2.) The material facts are as follows: On 6th January 1947, the applicants were taking two consignments of grain by boats from district Lakhimpur to the adjoining district of Bahraich. They were convicted for having contravened an order dated 26th August 1946, passed by the Regional Food Controller prohibiting export of grain from Kheri district to another district without a permit authorising such export. In each case, the person convicted was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- and all the grain which was being exported was confiscated to Government. Dissatisfied with this decision Ram Asrey and Gaya Prasad preferred appeals which were heard by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kheri. He noticed that there was no copy of the Regional Food Controller's order for the contravention of which the appellants before him were convicted, on record. Accordingly he sent for the order from the Collectorate. He found on reference to the file on which the order was placed that the "order had been published". The appellants before him had admitted that they were exporting grain from Kheri to Bahraich, but pleaded that they were not aware of the existence of the order, with the contravention of which they were charged. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the existence of the order as sufficient proof of the appellants' guilt and dismissed the appeal. They came up in revision to the Avadh Chief Court. Their revision applications were numbered 154 and 155 of 1947, as already stated. These applications came up for consideration before Walford J. on 8th March 1948. It was argued before him that as the record stood there was no evidence to prove the existence of any order of the Regional Pood Controller or of its due notification or publication. It was contended that the action of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in sending for the record and not giving any opportunity to the applicants to meet "whatever fact that may have been discovered from that file" was a procedure unwarranted by law. The concluding portion of Walford J.'s order runs as follows;

(3.) The matter has been argued at some length before me. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the learned Additional Sessions Judge's findings it was clear that there was no due publication of the Regional Food Controller's Order. That there was no proof that his clients knew of the existence of any such order; nor could such knowledge be imputed to them inferentially by such publication of the order as was made.