D PEDDAPULLA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1966 confirming the conviction and sentences awarded by the First Class Magistrate, Kollapur by his order dated 30th March, 1966 in Calendar Case No. 31 of 1965.

(2.) The brief and relevant facts that led to this revision petition are as follows : P.W. 8, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kollapur on a search of the house of A-1 in Koppunur village, Mahboobnagar district at about 5-20 P.M., on 26th August, 1965, detected 28 bags of rice and seized the same after recording a panchanama in the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 5. P.W. 8 was accompanied by P.W- 4 police constable, P.W. 9 Head Constable and P.Ws. 1 to 3 when he conducted the search and seized the rice bags from the house of A-1. A-2 to A-4 came to the house of A.1 at the time of search. A-1 to A-4 obstructed the removal of the rice stocks from the home of A.1 to the Panchayat Board office as per the directions of the Sub-Inspector. The obstruction was caused by the accused inspite of the protests made by the police party. Subsequently the rice bags were seized under a panchanama and the accused were charged for the offences punishable under clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 read with section 7. of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 and under rule 142 of the Defence of India Rules and section 353, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution expjnined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and filed the documents Exhibits P-1 to P-10 in support of its case. A-1 admitted that he was in possession of 28 bags of rice seized by P.W. 8 but denied the alleged obstruction by any one of the accused, while the rice Was being carried from his houre to the panchayat office. He further pleaded that he has rot committed any offence under the Essential Commodities Act. The other accused also pleaded not guilty and stated that they did not obstruct the public servants, from discharging their duties r.or any one of them assaulted the police party. The trial Court believed the prosecution story and convicted A-1 under clause 3 of the A.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 read With section 7 (i) (a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. A-1 to A-4 Were convicted under rule 142 of the Defence of India Rules, 1062 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months each. The sentence of imprisonment against A-1 Was directed to run concurrently. In View of the conviction of the accused under rule 142 of the Defence of India Rules A-1 was acquitted of the charge under section 353, Indian Penal Code. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Mahboobnagar confirmed the convictions of the accused and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(3.) Mr. Madhava Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that A-1 is not liable to be convicted for the offence under clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 as the ingredients of the clause have not been established beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence on record does not warrant the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under rule 142 of the Defence of India Rules. The learned Public Prosecutor contended contra. It is convenient at this stage to consider the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Clause 2 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 defines a " dealer " thus :-