KESHO SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition in revision arises out of a summary trial, as a result of which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Imported Food-grains (Prohibition of Unauthorised Sale) Order, 1958, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. It has also been directed that the seized foodgrains shall be forfeited to the Government.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, on a petition filed by the members of the public before the Sub-divisional Officer, Nawada, on 13-6-1967, the Sub-divisional Officer ordered for an immediate search of the business premises occupied by the present petitioner at Par Nawada. in the town of Nawada. by two Magistrates, Sri N. C. Das and Sri. S. Prasad. These two Magistrates, thereupon, proceeded to the house of the petitioner, in a portion of which he had a grocery shop, and as a result of the search, there was recovery of five bags of imported wheat comprising 3 quintals and 13 kilograms and two bags of flour made from imported wheat comprising 63 kilograms, that is, in all 3 quintals 76 kilograms. Two of the bags were alleged to have been found in a room in the residential portion of the house covered by some bags of Bhussa, while the remaining bags were found in a room attached to the shop-room of the petitioner. The Magistrates, thereafter, submitted a joint report to the Sub-divisional Magistrate regarding the seizure of the aforesaid flour and wheat and for prosecution of the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the Imported Foodgrains (Prohibition of Unauthorised Sale) Order, 1958, and cognisance of the case was taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the basis of this report.

(3.) The defence of the petitioner in the Court below was that the bags of the foodgrains in question did not belong to him, but belonged to two other persons, namely, Paul Das and Remand Ram-brichh (D. Ws. 2 and 3). The defence case was that these two persons had received certain quantities of imported wheat from the Catholic Mission, Nawada, by way of famine relief and after getting a part of the wheat crushed into flour, they had taken with them a portion of the wheat and flour to their own residence and had left the remaining quantity of wheat and flour with the petitioner for safe custody with a view to remove the same on a later date.