RAMAYAN BHAGAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are petitioners who have been Fod guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months, each. Along with these two petitioners, some other persons were also convicted by the Munsif -Magistrate, First Class, Gopalganj, but on appeal to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra, those other persons were acquitted and the conviction was aintained only as regards these two petitioners as stated above.

(2.) The facts of the case relating to the present petition may be summarised as follows: In the District of Saran there is a Block at Bhorey which is also a polics station. On the 7th August, 1964 there was a staff meeting in the office of the Black Development Officer of Bhorey where it was discussed that some members of the Bharat Sewak Samaj had informed the Block Development Officer that Ramayan Bhagat and others were in the habit of smuggling food -grains from Bihar to U. P., and the Block Development Officer asked his staff to be vigilant about it. On the very next day i.e. on the 8th August, 1964, the Supervisor. Rajbanshi Prasad (P. W. 4) detected that two carts containing rice bags (13 bags on one and 5 bags on the other) were being driven by two persons. The Supervisor there, after directed the cartmen to accompany him to Bhorey police station and the carts proceeded for some distance in that direction. Mean, while, it is alleged that petitioner Ramayan Bhagat came there and forced the cartmen not to go towards the police station. This created some confusion and meanwhile many persons collected there as also a police constable. Some Mukhias also intervened in the matter and at their instance the 18 bags of rice were kept in charge of Ramayan Bhagat who granted a receipt (Ext. 1) for the same. At that very time he bad produced 4 cash memos standing in the name of different persons, and informed the Supervisor that he had purchased those bags in the name of four different persons and the sale was to be done in his own village. On the 11th August, 1964, the Block Development Officer, got some confidential information that Ramayan Bhagat had kept some cancealed bags of rice in the houses of different persons of his own village as well as the neighbouring village and so be made a raid of those houses. From the houses of Mokhtar Mian, Nabijan and Ramjan Mian be recovered four bags of rice from each house. Thereafter the house of Ramayan Bhagat was also searched and 16 full bags of rice and two bags containing some rice were also recover, ed. These three Muslims admitted that the 'bags recovered from their houses had been kept by Ramayan Bhagat. The Block Development officer then entrusted 12 bags of rice to P. W. 3, Birbahadur Singh, but on the 12th August, 1964 Birbahadur Singh reported to the Block Development Officer that Ramayan hagat and five others raided his house and forcibly removed those 12 bags of rice. The matter was reported to the police on the 14th August, 1964 by the Block Development officer as a result of which a case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was started against of these petitioners and some others. That case ended in conviction of Ramayan Bhagat only under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code by the appellate court and the rest of the accused were acquitted. On the basis of the report filed by the Blook Development Officer an another case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was started against these two petitioners and under Section 8 of that Act against other accused persons. In this case these two petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment and pay fine as stated above, but the lower appellate Court acquitted the remaining accused who had been convicted by the learned Magistrate. As against this order of conviction the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Thakur Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged only two points before me. His first contention is that the second trial was in violation of the provisions of Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The second point raised by him is that these petitioners have been sufficiently harassed by now, because Ramayan Bhagat has already undergone the punishment of jail for one year in the previous case and so a lenient view concerning the sentence should be taken.