Rajinder Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

The appellants were challaned under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for having contravened clause 3 of the Punjab Wheat Licensing Control JUDGMENT 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the JUDGMENT 1982). The learned Special Judge, Sangrur vide his order dated 11th September, 1985 convicted the appellants under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ each and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Feeling aggrieved thereby they filed this appeal.

According to the prosecution case, ASI Rattan Singh along with other police officials was on patrol duty near Karail Barrier on 10th of September, 1983. The police party was on motor cycles. When the police party was at a distance of 100 yards from Karail Barrier a tractor trolley was seen coming towards the barrier. This barrier is on the border of Punjab and Haryana. ASI Rattan Singh stopped the tractor trolley. The tractor was being driven by Rajinder Singh appellant whereas the other appellants were sitting on the bags loaded in the tractor trolley. The trolley was searched and it was found to contain 36 bags of wheat and four bags of sarson. The appellants were asked to produce any permit for carrying the wheat bags from Punjab to Haryana. They possessed none. Consequently ruqa Ex. P.C. was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case, on the basis of which, a case was registered vide FIR Ex. PC/1 under Section 7 of the Act. They were accused of contravening clause 3 of the JUDGMENT 1982. The wheat was weighed. It was found to be 36 quintals and sarson was found to be 80 kilograms. The tractor trolley and the wheat and sarson were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA. Site plan was prepared showing the place where the appellants were intercepted and recovery of wheat and sarson was effected. After completion of the investigation the appellants were challaned and convicted as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Appellants were given notice under Section 7 of the Act for having contravened clause 3 of the JUDGMENT 1982. They pleaded innocence and claimed trial.

In support of the case of the prosecution three PWs were examined. Ajaib Singh PW 1 is the clerk of the Licensing Authority and PW 2 HC Bhagwan Singh and PW 3 ASI Rattan Singh are the police officials. After close of the prosecution case the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure putting all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and in their statements they put up their own version. Rajinder Singh appellant took the plea that he was driver of the tractor and was intercepted by the police near village Salemgarh along with other appellants and from there they were taken to Police Station, Moonak and were falsely implicated in this case.

Rattan Singh appellant pleaded that he is an agriculturist and was taking the wheat and sarson to Moonak Grain Market for sale. This was being taken from his village to the Grain Market Moonak.

Jagir Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Sita Ram appellants stated in their statements that they are labourers and had taken lift in the tractor trolley and have nothing to do with the case.

In defence Hans Raj DW 1 was examined. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence. According to the prosecution, ASI Rattan Singh PW 3 along with HC Bhagwan Singh and other police officials was on patrol duty towards the barrier of village Karail and when the police party was at a distance of 100 yards from the said barrier the tractor trolley being driven by Rajinder Sing appellant was stopped in Punjab territory and from the search of the trolley 36 bags of wheat were recovered. It is further the case of the prosecution that wheat was being transferred to Haryana.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that even if the allegations of the prosecution are accepted no offence under Section 7 of the Act is made out as the appellants were arrested in the territory of Punjab State and at the time of the arrest and seizure of the wheat they still 100 yards from the barrier and no attempt to take wheat to Haryana was made by the appellants nor any is established. He has cited Malkiat Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 713 and Nasu Sheikh and anothers v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 1610.

In Malkiat Singh''s case (supra), the accused were arrested and Samalkha Barrier having 75 bags of paddy when they were at some distance from the border, and it was held that the accused could not be convicted under Section 7 of the Act as there was no contravention of the order. The truck loaded with paddy being seized at Samalkha Barrier well inside the Punjab boundary, there was no export of paddy within the meaning of para 2(a) of the JUDGMENTThere was merely a preparation on the part of the accused to commit the offence of export. It was quite possible that accused might have been warned that they had no licence to carry the paddy and they might have changed their mind at any place between Samalkha Barrier and the DelhiPunjab boundary and not have proceeded further in their journey.

Similarly in Nasu Sheikh''s case (supra) where the accused were arrested at a place 75 yards from the border of West Bengal while carrying paddy without permit, it was held that they have not committed any offence.

I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants in the present case were arrested within Punjab territory and they could legitimately change their mind before entering Haryana boundary and it cannot be said that they attempted to export wheat to Haryana territory.

In view of the discussion above I am of the view that this appeal merits acceptance. The judgment and order of the learned Special Judge is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge.