STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. CHUNILAL SARAOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Government under Section 417 of the Cri. P.' C. against the order of the Magistrate acquitting the two respondents Chunilal Saraogi, a tradesman of Imphal and K. Lei -kham Singh driver of the truck, who were prosecuted for an attempt to export chira (70 maunds in 33 bags) on 5 -3 -56, in contravention of the provisions of S, 3 of the Manipur Foodgrains (Movement) Control Order, 1956, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) THE facts are simple and not much in dispute. There is also evidence to prove them. Section 3 of the above -mentioned Order of 1956 runs thus:

(3.) WHEN examined the first accused Chunilal' admitted that he was carrying the chira for export outside the then State of Manipur but stated that he had a permit for it. No permit in his name was filed, and obviously the reference was to the expired permit in the name of another. On being questioned, he also stated that he did not know that the date of validity of the said permit had expired, and further stated that he had no intention to cheat the Government, but no explanation was offered as to how this accused claimed the benefit of the permit in the name of another for himself. It appears from the judgment of the learned1 Magistrate that the learned Counsel for the defence -urged before him that the permit in question was produced before the Officer -in -charge (Head constable) and the accused sought his advice and direction in the matter, and therefore there was an absence of mens rea on the part of the accused, and they could not be convicted. The prosecution on the. other hand asserted that the permit was not produced before the Head constable, and in any case the first accused who is a tradesman ought to have known that an expired permit was of no avail. It might be stated at once that there was no evidence in support of the contention that at the Kangpokpi Check Post this accused had approached the Head Constable and shown him the expired permit, and sought his advice. If he had done so one feels certain that the Head Constable would have seized it also. Again the accused would not have taken the trouble and expense of going 28 miles for that purpose, when he could have easily made that certain at Imphal.