SOPAN TRIMBAK WANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Case No. 60 of 1972 tried by the learned Assistant Judge there were seven accused. Accused Nos. 1 and 7 are father and son respectively and they were at all material times partners of a firm by the name of Bholaram Jawaharmal at Dhulia. Accused No. 2 is the trader of Malegaon. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the traders of a place called Dondaicha and they deal in foodgrains among other things. Accused No. 5 was working as Aval Karkun in the office of the Tahsildar at Malegaon. Accused No. 6 is the railway goods clerk at Manmad Railway Station. Besides these seven accused, who were part of the case, there is a firm of Ratilal Ramlal of Calcutta which also came in the picture because the goods in respect of which the offence was alleged to have been committed in this case were sold to them.

(2.) Before narrating the allegations on the basis of which the accused were prosecuted, it is necessary to bear in mind that there were to orders regulating the movements of foodgrains at the relevant time in Maharashtra. One was Maharashtra Foodgrains (Export Control) order, 1966, which prohibited export of foodgrains from the State of Maharashtra to any other place outside the State of Maharashtra except in accordance with the permission granted by the authority mentioned in that order. The Maharashtra Food grains Licensing order, 1963 regulated the movement of the foodgrains within the State of Maharashtra alone and even here the foodgrains above a particular quantity could not be sold by one trader to another except in accordance with the permission granted by the Competent Authority under that order. It may also be mentioned that both these orders were promulgated by the Government of Maharashtra under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Any contravention of the provisions of these orders is punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) It was the prosecution case in the trial Court that all the accused entered into a conspiracy to export foodgrains from the State of Maharashtra to the firm of Ratilal Ramlal in West Bengal by obtaining fraudulently a permit towards that end. It was contended that at the relevant time exports from the State of Maharashtra to outside were not allowed under the Order of 1966 and the accused in furtherance of their conspiracy obtained two permits for exporting 240 bags of maize and 240 bags of bajra from Manmad to a place called Ramkistpore. According to the prosecution, it was represented to the Tahsildar of Malegaon that Ramkistpore was a place within the State of Maharashtra in Gondia District and this misrepresentation persuaded the Tahsildar to grant them two permits for the export of the maize and bajra. Accused No. 2, who is a trader of Malegaon, made two applications to the Tahsildar requesting permissions for the export of maize and bajra by mentioning in these applications that they were to be exported to Ramkistpore. On the back of these applications an endorsement was made by accused No. 5, who was at that time working as Aval Karkun in the office of the Tahsildar, that Ramkistpore was situated in the District of Gondia. On the basis of these two applications two permits were prepared in the office of the Tahsildar by a clerk and the permits as originally prepared did not specify that Ramkistpore was in the District of Gondia. Accused No. 5 made an entry in the two permits which showed that Ramkistpore was in the District of Gondia. These permits were thereafter signed by the Tahsildar, who, says the prosecution, would not have signed them if it has not been represented to him that Ramkistpore was in Gondia District.