LEELA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEELA Singh and the other two appellants were tried for contravening the provisions of clause 3 of the Punjab Paddy and Rice (Export and Import Control) Order 1981 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, Exercising the powers of a Special Judge. They were held guilty and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In case of default in payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by this judgment dated May 23, 1986, Leela Singh and two other appellants filed the present appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief was that on November 8, 1993, Sub Inspector, Mewa Singh of the Food and Civil Supplies Department was present at Rampura Ghanota Barrier, which separated Punjab and Haryana territories. Sub Inspector, Jhanda Singh and other police officials were also present there. Puran Singh, Sub Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies Department was joined in the party and they held a picket on the road leading from Maniana to Tohana near the tubewell of Tej Partap Singh which was at a distance of 100 yards from the Haryana border. At about 8.00 a.m. two tractors fitted with trollies and a rehra driven by an engine came from the side of Maniana in order to proceed towards Tohana, which was in Haryana. One of the tractors bearing registration No. PLD 8094 was driven by Leela appellant and accused Baldev and Sheri were present in the trolley which contained paddy. The appellants and their companions were stopped and they were asked to produce permits to carry the paddy to Haryana but they did not posses the same. The Investigating Officer sent Jagdish Raj, Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies Department to arrange for gunny bags, weights and weighing scales. The paddy was unloaded and was weighed. It was 31 quintals 50 kilograms. The same was transferred into 45 bags. The paddy in the other tractor trolley and the 'rehra' was also weighed and seized separately vide different recovery memos. After the completion of the investigation, the appellants were tried and convicted as mentioned above.

(3.) THE contention of appellants in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that there was some dispute between them and Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies Department regarding the rate of Paddy and they wanted to take their paddy to Moonak for sale. In support of their contention, the appellants examined Gurdial Singh Ex-Sarpanch as Dw 1 and Roop Singh DW 2. Both these witnesses deposed that on account of dispute with the Inspectors of Food and Civil Supplies Department who were colluding with the Commission Agents and Maniana and paying lesser price, the appellants wanted to take their paddy for sale to Moonak purchase centre.