BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are four appellants in this appeal, namely (1) Babu Ram son of Bakshish Singh (aged 35 years), (2) Karnail Singh son of Piara Singh (aged 22 years), Driver and cleaner respectively of Truck No. HRX 3085 (3) Jit Singh son of Chhotta Singh aged 30 years) and (4) Gurdip Singh son of Basta Singh (aged 35 years), Driver and Cleaner respectively of Truck No. HRX 6095. The allegation against them is that they had attempted to smuggle rice from Punjab into Union Territory, Chandigarh on December 17, 1982. It is stated that on that date, Head Constable Piara Singh (P. W 3). Head Constable Didar Singh (P.W. 4) and some other poilice officials were on patrol duty, travelling in a Government jeep on the Sohana Road. They received secret information that the two Truck Drivers mentioned above would smuggle rice to Chandigarh in their respective trucks. Head Constable Didar Singh arranged a picket on the road. They noticed the two trucks coming on the road and signalled them to stop. It is alleged that the trucks instead of stopping, proceeded towards Chandigarh. The Police Party followed the two trucks in the Government Jeep. Sukhdev Singh Sub Inspector, Food and Supplies (P.W. 2) is alleged to have been joined by the Police Party in the way. The witness is stated to be waiting just by chance on the road side. The trucks were intercepted near Gurdwara Bhanna Bhagat, while they were admittedly at a distance of about 10 Karams from the boundary of the Union Territory, Chandigarh. The trucks carried a load of 150 Quintals of rice each. It is further alleged that the appellants did not possess any documents or Permit for the export of rice to Chandigarh. As a result of their personal search, various cash amounts ranging from Rs. 70/ - to Rs. 1,700/ - are said to have been recovered. After prosecution and trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows : (a) Babu Ram appellants under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month; (b) The remaining three appellants under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act to one year's Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - each, in default to undergo three months further Rigorous Imprisonment,each.

(2.) WITH the aid of the learned counsel for the appellants. I have been taken through the evidence produced on the record both by the prosecution as well as by the defence, the evidence consisting of not only the oral testimony of the witnesses but also some documents. The gravamen of the charge against the appellants is essentially the allegation that they had exported rice from Punjab into Union Territory, Chandigarh, without a valid permit. There is no dispute in regard to the fact that there was no ban on movement of rice from one place to another within the State of Punjab. The defence of the appellants which was taken up right at the earliest stage is that on the day of the occurrence they were carrying rice from the shellers, i. e. Messrs Friends Rice Mills Malko Majra to Messrs Sanjay Flour and General Mills Mohali. The trial Court has disbelieved this version by making reference to the entries made in the official record relied upon by the defence and has held that these entries are doubtful in nature. An important piece of evidence produced by the defence in this connection is that both the trucks were checked at Sohana Barrier by the officials of the food and Supplies Department and entry regarding the trucks in question as also the good s carried by them was made in the Movement Register maintained at the said Barrier. In order to prove this entry, Gurcharan Singh (D. W. 2) Inspector Food and Supplies, Sohana Barrier was produced and this witness proved the contents of the Movement Register maintained at the Barrier which contained the entry dated December 17, 1982, recorded at 2.5 p.m. in respect of the two trucks. Karnail Singh (D. W. 3) Sub -Inspector, Food and Supplies is the person who was posted at Sohana Barrier on the relevant day and who had himself made the entries in the Movement Register. The witness testified that the two trucks were loaded with rice wieghing 150 Quintals each. These vehicles were going from Sirhind to Mohali. The witness further deposed that he had himself seen the Release order No. 43, dated November 18, 1982 in respect of these goods at the time when he made the entries. It appears that the learned trial Court found fault with the above material on various minor points like the differnce in ink, space between the entries and absence of page making in the Register. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court gives an impression that the Court expected the appellants to prove their innocence to the hilt. This is indeed not a correct approach to the matter because it is essentially the duty of the prosecution to prove all the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and not for the accused to prove his innocence beyond such a doubt. While at the stage of the defence evidence, it may be further noticed that Darshan Lal (D. W 4), Accountant, Office of the District Food and Supplies Controller, Patiala, produced the original record showing that the Release Certificate for 1187.50 Quintals of rice was issued by the Department in favour of Messers Friends Rice Mills Malko Majra on November 18, 1982. Similarly, Reghunandan Dass (D W 5) an Accountant of Messrs Friends Rice Mills Malko Majra deposed regarding the same Release Certificate and the fact that on December 17, 1982, 300 Quintals of rice had been sent by the said Firm to Messrs Sanjay Flour and General Mills Mohali by means of the two trucks concerned in the case. All this was sufficient evidence produced by the defence to show that the rice in the question was not sumuggled to Chandigarh Territory, as alleged.

(3.) COMING to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is an admitted fact that the trucks in question were stopped at a point from where the road leads to Mohali and which point is at some distance from the border of Union Territory, Chandigarh. This stand has been brought out in the corss examination of Head Constable Piara Singh (P.W. 3). In view of this circumstances, there is hardly any necessity to refer to the other descrepancies interse the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Sufficie it to say that the case against the appellants has not been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of this doubt must go to them.