(1.) This revision application is directed against an order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, ' Arambagh, committing the petitioners Anil Kumar Samanta and another to the Court of Session in respect of two charges under Section 7(2), Essential Supplies Act, 1946.
(2.) The prosecution case briefly was that in the afternoon of 26-6-1952, Anil Kumar Samanta and his brother Sunil Kumar Samanta moved 30 mds. of paddy in 20 bags from the western bank of river Mundeswari to its eastern bank, and later on the same day, 14 bags containing 21 1/2 mds. of paddy were taken by them to Dehibatpur Hat-tola. Accordingly, there were two charges against the petitioners -- one for violation of the Govt. of West Bengal Cordoning Order by moving the paddy across the river and one for possession of paddy in excess of the maximum quantity prescribed by the West Bengal Foodgrains Control Order, 1951, the maximum quantity prescribed thereunder being 10 mds. of paddy or rice. Under the proviso to Section 7 (2) (b), Essential Supplies Act, where a person contravening the order prescribing the maximum quantity of any foodgrains that may be lawfully possessed by any person or class of persons, is found in possession of food-grain exceeding twice the maximum quantity so prescribed, the punishment shall extend upto seven years and, therefore, the offence is one triable by a Court of Session. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate committed both the petitioners, Anil Kumar Samanta and Sunil Kumar Samanta, to the Court of Session.
(3.) In this revisional application for quashing the commitment two points have been urged. The first point urged is that in view of the explanation added to Section 7 (2), Essential Supplies Act, the person in possession of excess foodgrain will get a grace of 5 mds., and therefore, he will become punishable under the proviso to Section 7 (2) (b), only when the maximum quantity found in his possession exceeds 25 mds. This contention cannot, in our view, be accepted because the explanation is in the following terms: