JAINA VENKATAYYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order of the Munsif-Magistrate, Jangaon, dated 24th December, 1964. The case of the petitioner is that the chargesheet filed in the case does not disclose any offence against him and so no proceedings could be started or continued against him. The charge-sheet reads thus : 18th March, 1965.

(2.) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has promulgated on 29th July, 1964, the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitiqp of Stocks) Order, 1964 and the same Order was issued undersub-rule (2) ofrule 125 of Defence of India Rules, 1962, read with sub-rule (3) clause (b) and sub-rule (9) by which it makes it obligatory for every stock holder who has in his possession or control 40 quintals or more of paddy or 25 quintals or more of rice to declare the stocks before the appropriate authorities within 5 days of the publication of the Order in the Official gazette. On 20th August, 1964, at about 9-00 P.M., P. W. 1, informed that the accused mentioned overleaf and Jaina Rajaiah are in possession of paddy more than 40 quintals without declaration at Ainapur.

(3.) On this information on 21st August, 1964, the houses of accused and Jaina Rajaiah were inspected to verify the quantity of paddy in their possession or under their control along with P.Ws. 2 and 3. On inspection the accused had in his possession paddy to the tune of 117.50 quintals which was seized Under panchanama and given in the custody of P. Ws. 9 and 10 for production when required. The accused had neither declared the stock nor maintained any accounts which is in contravention of sub-rule (2) of 125 of Defence of India Rules, 1962, punishable under rule 125 (9) of Defence of India Rules, 1962."