SRI MONMOHAN DAS Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMMEDIATELY after hearing learned Counsel of both the parties, order was passed in open court on 12.11.82, acquitting the accused announcing that reasoned judgment would follow. I now give reasons for the judgment.

(2.) THE question which arises for consideration is whether the accused violated Clause 16 of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961, as amended up -to -date (hereinafter called 'the Order'), and punishable as such under Section 7(1)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barpeta, before whom the Petitioner was prosecuted held him guilty and sentenced him to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, and in default to undergo another 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The seized (sic) bags of rice weighing 76.95 quintals were ordered also to be conflicted. The learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati, on appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 23(K -3)/76, confirmed the conviction with modification of sentence. The appellate Court sentenced (sic) accused to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, and in default, to undergo imprisonment for further 3 months. The order of confiscation of the seized rice was, however, maintained. The Petitioner has come up in revision to this Court against the conviction and sentence aforementioned. The prosecution case may be stated in a nutshell. The Petitioner, Monmohan Das, was a rice wholesale licensee of Barpeta Town under the said Order. On 4.10.73 Monmohan Das lifted (sic) bags of rice weighing 76.95 quintals from the Food Corporation of India Depot at Tihu for transportation to Barpeta Town truck No. ASZ 9111. The movement permit for rice was from Tihu to Barpeta Town. But instead of bringing the rice to Barpeta Town, he caused movement of the said rice loaded in that truck to Barpeta Town Road. The truck carrying the rice was detected at Barpeta Road Town by Mahananda Das, Sub -Inspector of Supply (Enforcement) on 4.10.73. As the driver of the truck could not produce any permit from authority for movement or transportation of rice from Tihu to Barpeta Road Town, Sri Mahananda Das and Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Barpeta who was also present at that time at Barpeta Road o/p. directed the driver to proceed to Barpeta Town, where the accused had godown to unload the rice. As directed, the driver drove the truck carrying the rice to Barpeta Town. As no godown was found at Barpeta town, the truck was detained at Barpeta police station, and thereafter the rice was seized under seizure list, Ext. 3, dated 10.10.73. Subsequently, the seized rice was sold in public auction. With the sanction from the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Barpeta, the Sub -Inspector of Supply, submitted an offence report, Ext. 1 for prosecution of the Petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for Violation of Clause 16 of the said Order. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 7(i)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(3.) IT is a common ground that Barpeta town and Barpeta Road town are within the Barpeta Sub -division. It is also not disputed that Barpeta Road town is almost opposite to Barpeta town from Hawli which is within the Barpeta Sub -division. It is therefore, evident that there was no movement of rice out of Barpeta Sub -division to any area within the State of Assam within the meaning of Clause 16 of the said Order.