JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE abovementioned appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both have been preferred against the same judgment and order dated 27. 5. 1987 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Sirohi in Special Case No. 10/84, by which he acquitted one accused Nemichand for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the EC Act'), but convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act and sentence each of them to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals, in short, are as follows:- On 3. 12. 1983 at about 5. 30 PM, PW-3 Pukhraj Gehlot, Enforcement Inspector, Abu Road lodged a written report Ex. P/12 with the Police Station Abu Road District Sirohi stating inter-alia that on the request of the incharge of Police Barrier, Mawal, on 2. 12. 1983 PW-3 Pukhraj Gehlot alongwith police force proceeded towards the Barrier of Mawal, where they saw a Truck bearing No. RRN 2898 and that Truck was checked and on checking, 130 bags of wheat were found in it and the driver of that truck was accused appellant Jai Singh and he was asked about the papers and upon that, accused appellant Jai Singh produced Bilti No. 3095 dated 1. 12. 1983 showing that there were 160 bags of gwar korma and that consignment was sent by Kanti Chand and Company and it was to be received by M/s. Ambalal Kantilal at Ahmedabad and the Bill No. 143 dated 1. 12. 1983 was issued by that firm at Jodhpur. THE accused appellant Jai Singh further told that he had no other papers except that and these were given to him by the owner of the Truck as well as the owner of the goods and he had brought that wheat from Jodhpur. It is the case of the prosecution that accused appellant Kanti Chand Jain was owner of the wheat at that time. It was further stated in the report that since the goods lying in the Truck did not tally with goods for which accused appellant was having bilti, therefore, offence of contravention of Clause 3 of Rajasthan Wheat (Export Control) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as `the Order of 1981') was committed by the accused appellant Jai Singh and the owner of the wheat, namely, accused appellant Kanti Chand Jain. PW-3 Purkhraj Gehlot prepared the checking memo on the spot and the same is Ex. P/8. On this report, FIR Ex. P/16 was chalked out at Police Station Abu Road District Sirohi. After usual investigation, challan for the offence under Section 3/7 of the EC Act was filed against the accused appellants and one more accused Nemichand in the Court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Sirohi on 2. 8. 1984. THE contents of the offence under Section 3/7 of the EC Act were read over and explained to the accused persons by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Sirohi on 31. 10. 1984. THE accused persons denied the contents of the offence and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. THEreafter, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. In defence, two witnesses were produced by the accused persons. After conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Sirohi through his judgment and order dated 27. 5. 1987 acquitted one accused Nemichand, but convicted the present accused appellants for the offence under Section 3/7 of the EC Act and sentenced them in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia that prosecution has proved its, case beyond all reasonable doubts against the present accused appellant for the said offence. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 27. 5. 1987 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Sirohi, these two appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants. In these appeals, the following three submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants:- (1) That alleged incident took place on 2. 12. 1983 when the Order of 1981 was in force and the report was lodged on 3. 12. 1983 and challan against the accused persons were filed on 2. 8. 1984, but order of 1981 was rescinded by the Government Notification dated 4. 5. 1984 and thus, after 4. 5. 1984, the Order of 1981 was not in force and since proceedings remained pending even after 4. 5. 1984, therefore, continuation of proceedings after the Order of 1981 was rescinded, was nothing but abuse of the process of the Court and hence, accused appellants deserve to be acquitted on this ground alone. (2) That the Truck in question, which was being driven by the accused appellant Jai Singh was intercepted in side the territory of Rajasthan and before it would have crossed the border of Rajasthan, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Milkiat Singh and anr. vs. THE State of Punjab (1), the act of the accused appellants at the most would be preparation for commission of crime and not an attempt. THErefore, the findings of conviction recorded against the accused appellant by the learned Special Judge should be set aside. (3) That if the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused appellants have committed offence, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that incident took place on 2. 12. 1983 and that the Truck of the wheat was seized within the territory of Rajasthan, the accused appellants be granted the benefit of probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute that alleged incident took place on 2. 12. 1983 and the Order of 1981 was rescinded by the Government Notification dated 4. 5. 1984 and challan was filed on 2. 8. 1984.