- (1.) THE State Government of Madhya Pradesh have filed his appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, dated 18th July 1966, setting aside the order of conviction passed by the Magistrate First Class, Bhander, dated 24th April 1966, convicting the accused Ramcharan under Section 7 of the essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Inter Zonal wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964, and sentencing him to rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, or, in default, to 4 months' Rigorous Imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution case was this. On the night intervening between 15th and 16th may, 1965, the accused was found exporting wheat from Madhya Pradesh to Uttar pradesh in contravention of Section 3 of the Inter Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964. There were 9 carts laden with wheat bags landed into the "pat" of the Pahuj river, proceeding from Mouja Khiria-Jhansi in madhya Pradesh, heading towards Mouja Kumhari in Uttar Pradesh. The river pahuj is admittedly the border of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Uttar pradesh, and their respective boundaries would coincide at a point at the middle of the river. The wheat Inden carts were intercepted and seized. The first cart was being driven by the accused Kamcharan carrying 9 maunds ol wheat and the eighth cart containing 12 maunds of wheat by the accused Binde. Both the accused persons were tried by the Magistrate First Class, Bhander, and convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 200/ -. Against their conviction and sentences, the accused preferred Criminal Appeals Nos. 137 and 138 of 1966 before the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, who has allowed the said appeals and set aside their conviction and sentences holding, inter alia, that they had not contravened Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and/or Sections 3 and 4 of the Inter Zonal wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964.
(3.) TBE learned Sessions Judge is of the view that the carts having been intercepted and seized on this side of the river Pahuj in the State of Madhya pradesh, had not crossed the border and, therefore, the accused had neither exported nor attempted to export wheat, in contravention of Section 3 of the movement Control Order, and could not be convicted under Section 7 of the essential Commodities Act. As regards the contravention of Section 4 (b), the learned Judge held that the accused had a two-fold protection. In the first place, the carts had gone upto the bank of the river Pahuj from the village abadi of mouza Kheriya Jhansi, i. e. , the movement was within the same village area itself, and this is permitted under the exemption granted by Section 6, Clause (iii ). In this connection, he observes: "village evidently would mean the area of the village as shown in revenue records. What Section 4 (b) contemplates is restriction on the movement of wheat from one village to the other and not to movement of wheat within the same village area. " Secondly, the accused were also protected by the exemption under Section 6, clause (vii), if they were taking wheat with the intention of sale to Chirgaon inasmuch as the Chirgaon Mandi was the nearest market from the Zonal border area where Mouza Khiriya Jhansi is situate. The learned Judge states: "the Mandi should be the nearest Mandi from the zonal border area. It could be within or outside the zonal border area. The object in view appears to be convenience to the villagers in the zonal border area and not to disrupt the Mandis and the commercial commitments. Therefore, even if the accused were moving grain with the intention of sale at chirgaon, which is the nearest Mandi, Section 6 (vii) protects them. ";