MD WAZED ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the essential Commodities Act, 1955, for violation of paragraph 2 of the West Bengal Essential Commodities (Restriction on Movement) Control Order, 1965, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten days and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for 15 days more. The allegations are as follows :-On June 8, 1965, the petitioner was taking 75 quintals, 14. 2 Kg. of paddy in 86 bags from the district of West Dinajpore to the district of Malda, when he was apprehended and the paddy seized. It is alleged that the West Bengal Essential Commodities (Restriction on Movement) Control Order, 1965, came into force on May 26, 1965, and the petitioner had no permit under paragraph 2 of that order and as such he had committed an offence under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 for violating paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Control Order of 1965. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was in the act of moving this quantity of paddy from the district of West Dinajpore to the district of Malda. He had no permit under paragraph 2 of the west Bengal Essential Commodities (Restriction on Movement)Control Order, 1965. It appears, however, that he held an effective permit for movement of paddy from West Dinajpore to Malda on the relevant date under the West Bengal Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1964. The question for consideration is if that was a sufficient authority for the movement of the paddy from the district of West Dinajpore to the district of Malda even after the control order of 1965 came into force. The proviso to paragraph 2 of the said order keeps alive the permit issued under the west Bengal Rice (Movement Control)Order, 1964, and a person holding an effective permit under Chat order was authorised to move paddy from one district to the other even after the control order of 1965 came into force. Paragraph 2 states that no person shall move paddy from one place within a district to any place outside that district except under a permit issued under that order. But the proviso adds that nothing contained in paragraph 2 shall apply to the movement of paddy covered by a permit issued under West Bengal Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1964. The movement of the paddy which was being made by the petitioner in the present case is covered by an effective permit issued under the West Bengal Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1964. The petitioner was, therefore, authorised to move this paddy even after the West Bengal Essential Commodities (Restriction on Movement) Control Order, 1965, came into operation. The order of conviction and sentence cannot, therefore, be sustained. In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. The fine, if paid, be refunded. The order of confiscation of the seized paddy is also set aside. If the paddy had already been sold, the Sale proceeds be returned to the petitioner.