B. VENKATA RAO AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner No. 2 is a businessman of Anakapalli and a dealer in molasses. The Petitioner No. 1 is an employee of his. Both or them were put on trial for an offence under Section 7 of The Essential Commodities Act read with the Orissa khandasari and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) on the allegation that they were in possession of more than 50 quintals of Gur on a single day without the licence. They were dealers under the Order and having carried on business in contravention' of Clause 3(1) of the said Order had committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 and accordingly they were prosecuted. According to the prosecution case the Petitioner No. 1 was traveling in a truck A.P.S. 1361 along with a way bill (Ext. 3). At the Girisola check gate on the Andhra -Orissa border this fact was duly recorded. The consignment weighed 73 quintals and 80 kgs. The truck reached Berhampur on 17 -8 -1966. The Petitioner No. 1 instead of delivering The entire stock of 560 lumps of Gur to The consignee (M/s. Polaki Sitaram & Sons of Berhampur) delivered only 200 lumps of Gur to them and stored the remaining 360 lumps at Cuttack Lorry Godown at Berhampur for sale directly. The Civil Supplies authorities got the information and started a case against the two Petitioners. The 360 lumps of Gur were also seized from the godown.

(2.) THE defence case was that the Petitioner No. 1 bad carried actually 360 lumps of Gur which were seized in Berhampur town and he bad not delivered any Gur to Polaki Sitaram & Sons. Since 360 Lumps of Gur would not be more than 50 quintals in weight There was no criminal liability at all.

(3.) MRS . Padhi for the Petitioners contended that no reliance can be placed in this case on Ext. 8, a letter said to have been written by Polaki Seetaram & Sons' to p.w. 3 in answer to a query made by him about the consignment of molasses. This document really does not appear to have been proved in accordance with law. None representing the firm which wrote the letter has been examined in this case. I am prepared to accept the contention of Mrs. Padhi that Ext. 8 should not be relied upon.