V VERABHADRALU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules for contravention of Clause 18 (a), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to under go rigorous imprisonment for four months more by a Deputy Magistrate, 1st class, Berhampur. The learned Magistrate further convicted the petitioner under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules for contravention of the Government of Orissa Notification No. 11693 S.T. dated 23rd December 1943. But on appeal the learned Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction and sentence for contravention of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order set aside the conviction for contravention of the Government Notification mentioned above. Page 1 of 4 V. Verabhadralu vs. State (10.10.1949 - ORIHC)

(2.) The facts as found by both the Courts are as follows: On 13th May 1946 at about 5 P. M. the petitioner was found proceeding in a motor car from Berhampur towards Ichhapur. The oar stopped at a Railway Level Crossing on the Trunk Road near Haldiapadara village and there some police constables searched the oar and found 113 pieces of new handloom cloth in it. The petitioner is a dealer in cloth in village Narsanapeta in Madras Presidency and the cloth was purchased by him at a cheap rate at Berhampur. The petitioner had no permit for the transport of cloth from Orissa to Madras Presidency nor did he have any special permit from the Textile Commissioner to be in possession of as many pieces of cloth. He was prosecuted for contravening the Notification No. 11693 S.T. dated 23.12.43 of the Government of Orissa prohibiting the transport of cloth from any place in the Province to any place outside the Province except in accordance with the permit issued by a competent authority and also for contravening Clause 18 (2) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted him of the former contravention observing that from the facts as proved by the prosecution witnesses it may not be reasonable to hold that the petitioner was actually attempting to transport the pieces of cloth to Madras Presidency. But he maintained his conviction for contravention of Sub-clause (2) of Clause 18 of Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1945 because he considered that the quantity of cloth in his possession was far in excess of his normal requirements.

(3.) The explanation which the petitioner put forward before the trying Court to account for his possession of such a large quantity of cloth was that he wag preceding to village Panchama (in Orissa province) for the purpose of distributing the pieces freely to poor persons there because he had made a vow (Manaik) before the deity there. He also examined a witness ( D. W. 1 ) in support of this plea. But both the Courts rejected this explanation as quite unconvincing. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge this findings of fact before us in this revision petition.