PROVINCE OF BIHAR Vs. THAKKAN MANJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondent, who had been tried for an offence punishable under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravention of the provisions in Clause (b) of Section 3, Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1947. The respondent had been convicted by a Magistrate of the first class who had sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and had further directed that the entire 190 bags of rice seized from the two country boats shall be forfeited to His Majesty under Section 14, Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1947. The Additional Sessions Judge of Monghyr, however, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent.

(2.) According to the prosecution, on 24th April 1947, two country-boats, each containing 95 bags of rice, were seized at Sakarpura Ghat by the Sub-Inspector of police station Bakhri. The respondent was in possession of one of the two boats. According to the statement of the Sub-Inspector in the first information report, he had come to learn from a spy that two boats fully loaded with rice bags bad just arrived at Sakarpura Ghat from Nepal side and that the same would be carried to Bakhri Bazar to be stored in some golas that night. Accordingly, the Sub-Inspector proceeded to Sakarpura Ghat to verify the information and to take necessary action. He actually found two boats loaded with 190 bags of rice at the Ghat. The respondent, who was one of the boatmen, reported that these boats were loaded with 190 bags of rice belonging to Bana Chand Marwari of Hanuman Nagar district Saptari Nepal, and that the bags of rice were to be carried to the gola of Bahoran Potedar of Bakhri. The Sub-Inspector posted constables to guard the boats and the bags of rice were weighed. As the respondent failed to produce a permit or a licence for carrying these bags of rice, the Sub-Inspector charged him for having contravened the provisions of Ordinance XVIII [18] Of 1946.

(3.) The Additional Sessions Judge in appeal does not appear to have given any findings as to whether the facts alleged by the prosecution had been proved, nor is there anything in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge to indicate that he differed with the trial Court on the facts which the prosecution purported to prove by the evidence adduced on their behalf. He acquitted the respondent on a point of law, namely, that in keeping more than 20 maunds of grain on a boat, the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 3, Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1947, had not been contravened, as a boat could not be said to be included in the expression "premises". He referred to the meaning of the word (premises as to be found in Chambers' Dictionary and held that it could not by any stretch of imagination be thought that the word 'premises' meant a country-boat. The Assistant Public Prosecutor had frankly conceded before him that a country-boat being not a premises, the appellant could not be thought to have contravened the provisions of Section 3, Clause (b), Bihar Foodgrains Control Order, 1947. As to the order of forfeiture passed by the trial Court, the Additional Sessions Judge found that the 190 bags of rice were in two boats, 95 in each boat, and according to the admission made by the prosecution witnesses 1 and 2 in cross-examination one of these boats was in charge of one Muni Mallah, who was not proceeded_against. In such circumstances, the Magistrate could not pass orders of forfeiture of 95 bags of rice found in possession of Muni Mallah on a separate boat. In setting aside the conviction, he also set aside the order of forfeiture passed by the Court below against the respondent.