Partap vs State of Haryana

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Partap appellants has by way of this appeal challenged his conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month, under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act recorded by the Special Judge, vide his order dated 13th September, 1984.

The prosecution case in short in that on 20th December, 1983, on receipt of secret information a police party headed by Ved Pakash SubInspector held a nakabandi on Jind Bhiwani road. At about 12 noon they saw truck No. DHL 4110 coming from the side of Fowara Chowk and proceeding towards Bhiwani. The appellant was driving the truck. The truck was stopped and on search of the same 71 bags of rice were found. The appellant did not have any permit or licence for moving the same. Each bag weighed about 101 kg. of rice. The bags of rice and truck were taken into possession. The appellant was challanged for the violation of the order issued by the Director, Food and Supplies, Haryana, under clause 4 of the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) JUDGMENT 1979, which reads as under :

"In exercise of the power vested in me vide clause 4 of the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) JUDGMENT 1979 as amended up to date and Price Procurement (Levy) JUDGMENT 1979 as amended up to date and Price Control JUDGMENT 1978, I, R.D. Garg, Director Food and Supplies, Haryana, Chandigarh, in supersession of previous order circulated vide No. RP283/25980, dated 30.9.1983, do hereby order that no rice millers/dealers in the State shall move out of their rice mill premises/business premises, any variety of rice which is subject to levy unless he has obtained an authorisation in forms `A'' and `B'' appended to this order from the District Food and Supplies Controller/District Food and Supplies Officer or any other officer of the Food and Supplies Department duly authorised by the competent authority for the purpose.

Any other variety of rice not subject to levy rice shall also not be moved by rice dealers/millers out of their rice mill premises/business premises without obtaining the said form `B'' from the District Food and Supplies Controller/District Food and Supplies Officer or any other officer duly authorised by the competent authority for the purpose."

The appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that he had brought the rice from Delhi as a carrier, that the truck was in the union and that he was apprehended there in the early hours of the morning and later on the case was planned on him.

Leaving aside the position taken by the appellant, even if the allegations of the prosecution are taken at their face value I do not think that these amount to the contravention of the aforesaid order. It is nowhere in evidence that the appellant was a rice miller or dealer in the State of Haryana or that he moved the rice from the mill or business premises without obtaining any authorisation. The notification as it reads only bars the movement of rice by rice millers or dealers out of their mill or business premises. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. The fine, if recovered, should be refunded to the appellant.