LAWS(CAL)-1958-5-22

A P MISRA Vs. STATE

Decided On May 07, 1958
ANDHRA PRADESHMISRA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.P. Misra was tried along with two others R.S. Sarma and S.P. Mukherjee under Section 7, Sub-section (1) of the Essential Commodities Act (Act X of 1955) for violation of the provisions of Clause 3(1) of the Calcutta Wheat (Movement Control) Order, 1956, Accused S.P. Mukherjee who was the goods clerk at Nimtola goods office was in charge of accepting forwarding notes. The petitioner A.P. Misra was said to have produced on 1/10/1956 ninety-eight bags of wheat on behalf of accused R.S. Sarma, a school boy aged about 14 years for booking Ex-Nimtola to Kharakpur on behalf of self. S.P. Mukherjee was charged for abetment of the offence for export of wheat without a permit. The learned Magistrate who tried them acquitted the two co-accused but convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 in default to rigorous imprisonment for four months. The seized quantity of wheat was ordered to be confiscated. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore. The present Rule is directed against the aforesaid order or conviction and sentence.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the petitioner on behalf of co-accused H.S. Sarma produced 98 bags of wheat at Nimtola Railway Station for export to Kharagpur. The forwarding note was produced before the co-accused S.P. Mukherjee on 22/9/1956. A wagon was allotted wherein the goods were loaded for despatch. The goods in due course reached Kharagpur on 6/10/1956 when one man approached P.W. 3 M.B. Varma, the goods clerk at Kharagpur Railway Station for taking delivery of the goods. The goods however were not delivered as there was no permit for the movement. The defence of the petitioner was that he was not guilty. He further pleaded that he acted openly and was not aware of the particular Movement Control Order. Objections were also taken in the Courts below as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try the case.

(3.) In this Court Mr. J.M. Banerjee for the petitioner has taken the following points in support of the Rule.