Jairam and others vs State

Kesho Ram Passey, J.—The petitioners along with Sampat and Sultan were convicted by the Magistrate 1st Class, Narnaul, u/s 7 of The Patiala State Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 2003. Each of them (except Sampat and Sultan who were minors and punished with fine only), was sentenced to one year''s R.I., and fine. On appeal their convictions were maintained but sentences reduced to 6 months'' R.I., and Rs. 100/-fine. This is a revision petition by Jai Ram and 11 others but in which Sampat and Sultan have not joined.

Shri Ram Das admits that the petitioners were arrested on 22-9-1950 at 5 A.M., near Nangal Katha in Patiala State and that they were taking on camels the foodgrains recovered from them to a place outside the Mohindargarh District but he contends that the foodgrains had not been exported from any place in the Patiala State.

The accused when examined u/s 342, Criminal P.C., stated that they were taking the foodgrains from their village (which is in Gurgaon District), to Loharu in the same District. The onus of proving the ingredients of the offence for which the petitioners have been convicted was upon the prosecution and they have led entirely no evidence to prove that the accused were taking the foodgrains from any place in the Patiala State. What is prohibited by Section 3 of the Patiala State Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order 2000 is the export above quantity prescribed by Sub-clause (1) of any foodgrains except under and in accordance with a permit issued in that behalf by the Food & Price Control Commissioner.

From the mere fact that a person is arrested with a forbidden quantity of grains in the Patiala State and his contemplated terminus is a place outside the Patiala State territory, it cannot be presumed that he took them from a place within the territory of the Patiala State. The word ''Export'' as defined in Section 2, Sub-section (a) of the Patiala State Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 2000, means the taking out of foodgrains from Patiala State to any province in British India or to any Indian State.

In the present case as the accused had loaded their camels in their own village and were taking the foodgrains to a place outside the Patiala State territory, they cannot be said to have exported them from the Patiala State territory. Mere passing through the Patiala State territory with foodgrains would by no stretch of imagination amount to their export as contemplated by Section 3 of the Patiala State Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 2000. It is only the export of food-grains from within the Patiala State territory that is made punishable u/s 3; but not the passing or taking of foodgrains through the Patiala State territory from one place to another outside such territory.

In '' Gaya Prasad and Others Vs. Rex, it was held by Seth, J., that when something is carried from one place to another it has to pass through all the places that lie in between the two termini of the journey, it cannot be said that that thing is taken from all the intervening places that lie in between the two termini. It is the starting terminus alone from which the object or the thing may be said to be carried, and it is the other terminus alone which can be said to be the place to which it is carried, and therefore, a person who carries foodgrains from a place outside the province through the Province commits no offence.

In the case under examination as the prosecution has failed to establish that the foodgrains were taken by the accused from the Patiala State territory, the charge against the petitioners cannot be sustained. I, therefore, accept the revision, quash the convictions of the petitioners and the sentences passed upon them. Fine, if paid, by them shall be refunded.

Since the point of law on which this petition has succeeded is common to the case of Sampat and Sultan as well who are stated to be minors, but who have not put in any revision. I quash their convictions and sentences also, in the exercise of revisional powers.