BADRI PROSAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail under Section 498, Criminal P. C. The central question in this application is, how far the powers of the Court to grant bail have been cut down by Section 13A, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, as amended.

(2.) It is necessary to state briefly the relevant facts leading up to this application. The petitioner is an accused charged under Section 7 (2), Essential Supplies Act. The prosecution case, briefly, is that on the morning of 14-10-1951 at about 5/15 A. M. the petitioner was found driving lorry No. CH-1746 containing bags of rice coming along the Grand Trunk Road from Magra side being piloted by another lorry No. CH-519 which was proceeding a little ahead of lorry No. CH-1746. On this lorry No. 1746 was found rice weighing 151 mds. contained in 77 hags. This lorry was being driven by the petitioner and there was another man named Lakshminarayan, who was sitting by the side of the petitioner who was driving the lorry. The prosecution case is that neither the petitioner nor Lakshminarayan could produce any licence or permit. The petitioner was accordingly charged under Section 7 (2), Essential Supplies Act for violation of Rule 10 (1) and 3, Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, 1945.

(3.) The defence for the petitioner is that he had no guilty knowledge and, in fact, he had no knowledge whatever that there was no requisite permit for these bags of rice. It is his case that he was only the driver of this lorry which was hired by the owner of these bags of rice. In fact before the Sessions Judge at Alipore in his petition for bail he states that he took the lorry to Pandua to collect sand and was waiting on the road when a Bengali business man describing himself as a registered dealer in rice engaged him to carry the rice from Kalna Road to Chanditala and in fact a paper was shown to the petitioner by the owner, which paper was described to be a permit. The petitioner started the lorry from Kalna Road at about 4 A. m. and the lorry was checked at Magra and he states that the permit was shown to the officer and the lorry was allowed to run. Thereafter the lorry was stopped by a police officer and on the sight of the police officer the owner of the rice ran away and the petitioner was apprehended. The petitioner states that having been questioned by the police he stated all these facts before the police and in fact drew their attention to the owner who was still then running. In his petition before us, he has repeated the same facts stating that he had no reason to suspect that the owner of the bags had not the necessary permit or licence. He has also alleged that the owner of the bags was seated on the lorry and when the vehicle was stopped by the police he made himself scarce in the confusion. In short, the defence is that the petitioner is a mere carrier and he has no guilty knowledge or the necessary mens rea to be charged with any offence under the Statute.