MAHAVIR PARSAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by Mahavir Parshad against his conviction under sec. 7 read with sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Clause (3) of the Rajasthan Food-grains (Restriction on Boarder Movement) Order, 1959 as amended by the Rajasthan Food-grains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order, 1965. Clause (3) is as follows: Restrictions on the movement of food-grains to within the internal border area. No person shall transport, attempt to transport or abet the transport of food-grains: (a) to any place in the internal border area from any place outside that area; or (b) from any place in the internal border area to any other place in that area, except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or any officer authorised by that Government in this behalf. Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to the transport of food-grains within the district of Shri Ganganagar. ''internal border area" has been defined under clause 2 (bb) of the Order and means the area within the State of Rajasthan lying within a ten-mile belt all along the border of that State adjoining the States of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujrat. " Cognisance of the case was taken on the report of the Station House Officer, Singhana. The report also states the facts constituting the offence. It states that the petitioner was driving truck No. RJ-V 532 which was laden with bags of Jawar at the time it was checked while proceeding along the bus-route to Narnol from Singhana i. e. , towards border of Punjab. Sec. 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 authorises a summary trial of the offence alleged. The learned Additional District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu therefore, held a summary trial in the case. After trial he came to the conclusion that 55 bags of Jawar were being transported from Singhana which is in the internal border area to another place in that area in the truck driven by the petitioner on the night between 7th and 8th March, 1965. He found that the bags of Jawar were loaded in the truck at the shop of Madanlal co-accused who had no permit for transporting the food-grains. As regards the petitioner the learned Additional District Magistrate found that he abeted the offence inasmuch as he was carrying the food-grains in the truck. Besides the petitioner there were some more persons in the truck who were also prosecuted out of whom five were also convicted for abetment of the offence. The petitioner was sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In addition truck No. RJV 532 was also ordered to be forfeited to the State. A revision was preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, but it was rejected. The petitioner has therefore, come to this Court in revision and it has been contended on his behalf by his learned counsel that the trial of the petitioner was vitiated on the following grounds. (1) that the case was tried according to the procedure laid down in sec. 251a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not according to the procedure provided in sec. 252 and the following sections. Reliance is placed on State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Baital Nahar Singh (1 ). (2) that the petitioner was not examined at all under sec. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (3) that the petitioner was not questioned regarding the main ingredient of the offence viz. , that he was transporting food-grains from any place in the internal border area to any other area and had therefore, no opportunity to show that the place where the truck was seized was not within the internal border area. It is also contended that there is no proof on the record that the place of seizure was in the internal border area. Lastly it is contended that the petitioner was only a carrier and the sentence passed against him was very severe. Reliance is placed on State vs. Kishenlal (2 ). It has also been contended that the order regarding the forfeiture of the truck was not warranted in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE first question therefore, to be determined is whether proper procedure was adopted by the learned Magistrate in holding the trial of this case according to the procedure laid down under sec. 251a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Contention of the learned counsel is that the report of a police officer under sec. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act cannot be regarded as being one under sec. 173 of the Code to which only provisions of sec. 251a are attracted. In my opinion there is no force in this contention. Under sec. 190 of the Code, any Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate may take cognisance of an offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police-officer; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police-officer; or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed.