STATE Vs. KARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents Karna, Jora and Navla were tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinmal, for an offence under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with the Rajasthan Foodgrains (Restrictions on Border Movement) Order, 1959 and each of them was convicted under the said offence and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 100/ -. in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The subject-matter of the offence, namely, wheat, seized from them was also ordered to be confiscated.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by their conviction and sentences, the accused filed an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, by his judgment dated 20-9-68 set aside their conviction and sentences and acquitted them. Consequently, the State has filed this appeal from the said order of acquittal.

(3.) AFTER having gone through the relevant record, we are satisfied that it is proved beyond all manner of reasonable doubt that the three accused-respondents were found carrying wheat on camels on the night between 3rd and 4th November, 1965 from their village Hadecha Bichavadi towards the village Radaka in the State of Gujarat and that the place where they were caught lies within a five mile belt along with the border of Rajasthan adjoining Gujarat. It is established by the statements of P. W. 1 Navla Ram, P. W. 2 Narainlal, P. W. 3 Bishensingh, P. W. 4 Bhanwarsingh, P. W. 5 Mohan, P. W. 6 Bhima, P. W. 7 Jagatsingh and P. W. 8 Kishandas that the accused were stopped on the way leading from Bichavadi to Radaka. There were two bags of wheat on each of the two camels of the accused Kama and Jora and there was one bag of wheat on the camel of Navla. The seizure memo of wheat was duly prepared and the accused were arrested then and there and thereafter taken to the Police Station, Sangadva and the first information report (Ex. P-5) was lodged by P. W. 1 Navlaram. None of these witnesses is proved to have any enmity or illwill against the accused. Both the Courts below have accepted this evidence and the accused have not chosen to appear before this Court and contest the finding arrived at by the Courts below against them.