T. NARASU PATRO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default to undergo S.I. for fifteen days. The seized paddy was directed to be confiscated to the State.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that on 8th of January 1966, the Petitioner was bringing 13 bags of paddy in two carts to Berhampur. He was detected at Jagabandhu Dandasi street. The paddy was weighed and found to be ten quintals and fifty kilograms. He had no licence and accordingly, he committed an offence under Section 7 of the Act read with Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). The defence was that the Petitioner was a cultivator and he was bringing the paddy from home for milling and that the paddy was not weighed and was not more than ten quintals. The learned Sub -divisional Magistrate rejected the pleas and convicted the Petitioner.

(3.) THE first contention is without force. The learned Magistrate has examined the evidence and after having heard Mr. Murty at length, I am not impressed with his criticism that the paddy was not weighed. Though the school teacher (p.w.1) stated that he signed the seizure list before the paddy was weighed, no question was put to him in cross -examination that he did not see the weighing of the paddy. The Sub -Inspector (p.w.3) clearly states that the paddy was weighed and was found to be ten quintals and fifty kilograms. Nothing has been suggested against this witness why he should implicate this poor cultivator in a false charge. The first contention is accordingly rejected.