LANKA KOTESWAR RAO AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have been convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of Rule 4 of the Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1964 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month each in each of the cases. It has not been mentioned whether the sentences in respect of Petitioner No. 2 were to run concurrently or consecutively.

(2.) BOTH the cases arise out of the same incident. At about 9 p. m. on 11th of September, 1965, Lanka Koteswar Rao (Petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Revision No. 579/66) and Waderu Appanna alias Simmana (Petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Revision No. 580/(6) were carrying paddy in two carts, each cart containing eight bags of paddy. The paddy was being taken from village Machhamara to Parlakhemedi. Admittedly, Machhamara is not in the border area while Parlakhemedi is in the border area. Their defence was one of denial. Petitioner No. 2 in each of these revisions (Nila Chinna Babu) took the defence that he was not carrying paddy from Machhamara to Parlakhemedi, but was taking paddy from Raj Sitapuram to Parlakhemedi. The learned Magistrate tried the case in a Summary way and inflicted the aforesaid sentences.

(3.) IN both the cases, there is no prosecution evidence that Nila Chinna Babu (Petitioner No. 2 in both the cases) was going with the cart when the detection was made 00 the spot. Neither there is evidence that the paddy belonged to Chinna Babu and through cart -men he was transporting the same from a non -border area to a border area. The only evidence in Criminal Revision No. 579/66 is that of p.w.2, who clearly stated that be heard that the paddy was being transported by Chinna Babu through the cart -men. As there was no prosecution evidence to connect Chinna Babu with the transportation of paddy, no question should have been put to him under Section 342. Code of Criminal Procedure on this point. The answer of Chinna Babu that he was transporting paddy from Machhamara to Parlakhemedi, but was transporting paddy from Raj Sitapuram implied by meant that the paddy in question was being transported by him through the cart -men. This admission cannot be utilised against him in the absence of prosecution evidence to that effect. The object of Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure is not to get a conviction of the accused on his own confession but to enable him to explain the circumstances appearing against him in evidence. It is not necessary to cite any decision in support of this elementary proposition.