LAL MOHAN PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Lal Mohan Paul has come to this Court on the Revision Side for setting aside his conviction and sentence passed by Sri C. Singh, Magistrate first class, Sadar, under paragraph 26 (A) read with paragraph 4 of the Tripura State Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order 1358 T. E. and Section 176, I.P.C., which was upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Agartala. He has been awarded 6 months' R.I. and Rs. 250/ - as fins or in default 14 month's further R. I. for the afore said former offence, and 15 days' simple imprisonment under section 176, I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case as given in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is as follows : "Accused Lal Mohan Paul is the proprietor of a shop called Ananda Bhander situated in the Bazar in Agartala town. The shop deals in cloths. Accused Monomohan Dey is the employee of Lal Mohan Paul in the shop. Accused Lal Mohan Paul is the holder of a licence for dealing in mill -made and handloom cloths under the Tripura State Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1358. In accordance with that licence, Lal Mohan Paul is entitled to carry on his business and store cloths for sale in his cloth -shop at 48/2. Central Road, Agartala. According to the licence, he was not entitled to store his goods elsewhere without previous intimation to the licensing authority. On 15 -10 -50, Lal Mohan Paul was asked by P. W. 2 Jitendra Kumar Sen Gupta of Civil Supplies Department to supply a list with regard to mill -made cloths in his possession. Lal Mohan Paul gave a list accordingly of the cloths kept in his shop at 48/2, Central Road, Agartala. (Ex. 6 is the list). Accused Lal Mohan Paul did not disclose at the time that he kept his goods anywhere else. On 22 -10 -50, when P. W. 2 Jitendra Kumar Sen Gupta was passing along Motor Stand Road, he noticed 2 big trunks in a shop of a brassware merchant. This aroused his suspicion and he went into the brassware shop and enquired about it. After sometime, accused Monmohan Day turned up and stated that these two trunks belonged to Ananda Bhander and that the goods were received by post some days before and were kept in his residence near Motor Stand; that he was carrying the goods to the shop (Ananda Bhander) in the afternoon of that day, but owing to rain, he could not carry those goods to the shop, but kept them in the shop of Upendra Chandra Paul the brassware merchant. The key of the trunks was brought after that and the trunks were opened in the presence of witnesses and were found to contain mill -made cloths. A list of mill -made cloths was prepared at the time (Ex. 7 is the list). Accused Upendra Chandra Paul turned up at the time and submitted a written statement. Accused Monomohan also submitted a written statement. (They have been marked as Exs. 8 and 9). It was 1 A. M. by the time that the statements were taken and the lists were completed. P. W. 2 Jitendra Kumar Sen Gupta suspected that in the first floor of the shop of Upendra Chandra Paul, the brassware merchant, there might be some more cloths; but it was not possible to search the room at that late hour. So he arranged for keeping a watch on the shop throughout the night. On the following morning Santi Ranjan Das Gupta P. W. 3 a clerk of the Civil Supplies Department searched the first floor of the shop in the presence of witnesses as well as accused Lal Mohan Paul, Monomohan Dey and Upendra Chandra Paul and 5 trunks containing mill -made cloths were found there. These were listed and kept in custody of the accused Lal Mohan Paul and Upendra Chandra Paul (Ex. 10 is the list).

(3.) THE other two accused in this case though punished by the trial Court were acquitted on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge.