(1.) THE first application is by the father while the second one is by his son. Both of them were convicted for contravention of Clause 3(1) of the Orissa Rice Movement Control) Order, 1964, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 and both of them were sentenced to suffer one week's rigorous imprisonment with different sentences of fine by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Baripada. Their appeals having been dismissed, these revisions have been carried.
(2.) PROSECUTION alleged that the Petitioners are residents of village Ghoda bandha in Muruda P. S. of Mayurbhanj district. This village is close to the West Bengal frontier. On 17 -8 -1974 the weekly market at Dhumusahi on the other side of the border was being held. In the afternoon, the patrol party consisting of p. ws. 1. 3 and 4 met these two Petitioners with head -loads of paddy of twenty Kgs. each attempting to transport the same beyond the Orissa border without the requisite authority. The accused persons ran away after the paddy had been seized. In due course, prosecution was launched wherein the defence plea was that each of them was going to his village with the paddy and no attempting to cross the border.
(3.) MR . Mukherjee, counsel for the Petitioners in each case, has taken the stand that the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to establish the prosecution charge and, therefore, the conviction should not be sustained. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malkiat Singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1970. S.C. 713 and the decision of this Court in the case of Ramhari Ghosh and Anr. v. State, (1971) 2 C.W.R. 1150, for the contention that the prosecution evidence does not prove either attempt to commit or the commission of the offence. Malkiat Singh's ease1, arose out of a similar charge as here. The Court found that the truck carrying the paddy had been intercepted at a place fourteen miles from the frontier and observed: