ANIL KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Rules which were obtained by four persons tried separately for offences under Section 7, Essential Supplies Act were heard together as they raised the same question of law. The charge against each accused was that he on 29-5-1951, moved several bags of paddy in a cart without permit from outside the corridor to a place inside the corridor, not being a 'bona fide' resident of the corridor area, in contravention of Government Order No. 512 F.D. dated 15-1-1951 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7(2) of the Act 24 of 1946, All the four were convicted under Section 7 (2) of the Act 24 of 1946 and each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three weeks and to pay a fine of Rs. 60/-in default, to rigorous imprisonment for three weeks more, and the paddy seized was forfeited.

(2.) There can be no doubt that the charge as framed is defective. The accusation was that an order under Section 3, Essential Supplies Act had been contravened. The relevant order relating to the movement of the foodgrains was in this case Order No. 512 F.D. of 15-1-1951 as mentioned in the charge. Paragraph 3 of this Order is in these words:

(3.) In this case we are not concerned with 1st, 4th or 5th sub-para, of this Paragraph. It is necessary, however, to consider sub-paras. (2) and (3). In sub-para (2) the order in substance is that no person shall move foodgrain from outside the corridor into the corridor except under a permit. Sub-paragraph (3) regulates movement of foodgrain from one point to another point within a corridor area. The question whether a person is a bona fide resident or not of the corridor area is relevant only in connection with movement from one point of the corridor to another point in the corridor. That question is entirely irrelevant in connection with movement from, outside the corridor into the corridor. The accusation in the charge framed being that the paddy was being moved from outside the corridor into the corridor, no question arose whether the person was a bona fide resident of the area or not. The allegation in the charge that the person was not a bona fide resident of the area was, therefore, clearly wrong and confusing.