Vaidynathier Ramaswami JUDGMENT
Vaidynathier Ramaswami, J.
1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Punjab High Court, dated November 4, 1965, by which Criminal Revision Petition No. 263 of 1965 and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 224 of 1965, were dismissed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on October 19, 1961, Sub-Inspector Banarasi Lal of Food and Supplies Department was present at Samalkha Barrier along with Head Constable Badan Singh and others. The appellant Malkiat Singh then came driving truck No. P. N. U. 967. Babu Singh was the cleaner of that truck. The truck carried 75 bags of paddy weighing about 140 maunds. As the export of paddy was contrary to law, the Sub-Inspector took into possession the truck as also the bags of paddy. It is alleged that the consignment of paddy was booked from Lakerkotia on October 18, 1961, by Qimat Rai on behalf of Messrs. Sawan Ram Chiranji Lal. The consignee of the paddy was Messrs Devi Dayal Brij Lal of Delhi. It is alleged that Qimat Rao also gave a letter, Ex. P-3, addressed to the consignee Sawn Ram and Chiranji Lal were partners of Messrs. Sawan Ram Chiranji Lal and they were also prosecuted. In the trial court Malkiat Singh admitted that he was driving the truck which was loaded with 75 bags of paddy and the truck was intercepted at Samalkha Barrier. According to Malkiat Singh, he was given the paddy by the Transport Company at Malerkhotla for being transported to Delhi. The Transport Company also gave him a letter assuring him that it was an authority for transporting the paddy. But is later transpired that it was a personal letter from Qimat Rai to the Commission agents at Delhi and it was not a letter of authority. Babu Singh admitted that he was sitting in the truck as a cleaner. The trial court convicted all the accused persons, but on appeal the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of Sawan Ram and Chiranji Lal and affirmed the conviction of Qimat Rai and of the two appellants. The appellant took the matter in revision to the High Court but the revision petition was dismissed on November 4, 1965.
3. It is necessary at this stage to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1655). Section 3(1) is to the following effect :
"3. (1) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein."
Section 7 states :
"7. (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3 -
(a) he shall be punishable -
(i) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to ........