STATE Vs. MOHANLAL SUTADIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under S. 438, Criminal P. C, by the Sessions Judge, U. A. D. recommending that a certain order of Mr. U. N. Rajkhowa, Magistrate 1st Class, dated 27 -6 -52 relating to forfeiture of a truck load of rice Under Section 7(2)(b), Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 be set aside. What happened was that the Sub -Divisional Officer, Golaghat detected on 25 -6 -1951 a truck load of rice being carried by the road leading to Negheriting Tea Estate without any permit and at his direction, the Inspector of Supply, Mr. S. Ahmad, seized the rice as the movement of rice was then under control and took the same with one Noporam Kumar in charge of the truck to the Central Trading Cooperative Stores at Golaghat and made over the same to them after the formalities of seizure were completed. The rice was sold through Cheap Grain Shops and the sale proceeds were deposited in the Treasury.

(2.) WHEN the charge was framed against Noporam, he simply pleaded not guilty but when the accused entered into his defence, Mohanlal Suto -dia (D. W. 3) proprietor of Satyanarayan Rice Mill of Barpathar claimed to have despatched the rice seized weighing 101 maunds, in pursuance of contract that he had already entered into with She authorities of the Negheriting Tea Estate at a period when the movement of rice to tea gardens was permitted for a time without license, to the lack of supply of foodstuffs to those areas. The period of free movement, however, admittedly expired on 20 -6 -1951 and this movement took place on the showing of the defence witnesses not earlier than 25 -6 -1951. The finding of the learned Magistrate Is that the evidence of defence witnesses Mohanlal Sutodia and Sew Narayan showed that Mohanlal or for the matter of that the rice mill of the accused received the information as to the free movement being stopped by the Government on the 23rd or 24th of June. The Magistrate therefore held that Mohanlal or his Munib Noporam had moved the rice in violation of the Foodstuffs Control Order and as such the offence was committed with respect to the rice.

(3.) WE are therefore left with the only question whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that there could be no order for forfeiture Under Section 7(2) (b), Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, independent of a conviction of an individual Under Section 7(2) (a) of the Act. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge definitely misled himself in holding that there could be no order for forfeiture apart from a conviction. What the Act obviously intended was that in case any person is found to have contravened any order Under Section 3 relating, to fobti -sttifrs, he shall be -punished as prescribed under Section 7(2) (a) and the direction as to the disposal of the property is that the property in respect f which the order has been contravened or such. part thereof as the Court may deem fit shall be forfeited to the Government, unless for reasons to be recorded the Court thinks fit that ft is not necessary to direct forfeiture. Were Clause (b) of Section 7(2) intended to provide for additional punishment to the accused, the wordings of the section would have been otherwise and there might have been something to the effect that the Court may in addition, forfeit the whole part of the property with respect to which the accused is found to have committed the offence.