N. N. Sharma,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15-5-77 by Sri S. R. Maheshwari, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in case no. 1594 of of 1976, who acquitted respondents of the charges under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. THIS appeal arose under following circumstances.
(2.) IT appears that on 29th of September, 1974 at about 3-45 A. M. appellants were found carrying wheat loads in Government Roadways Bus no. USE 5946 without any permit or authority when they were intercepted near Kosi Bridge Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur. Loads of wheat each weighed variously as detailed in recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 dated 29-9-74 drawn by Sri V. P. Singh, S. O. in presence of constables and Imdad Ali (PW 1) examined by learned trial Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence and framed charge against respondents under section 3/7 (1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1975 read with section 6 of U. P. Wheat and Wheat Products (Regulation of Trade and Control Movement) Order, 1974. While evidence was being recorded, statements of accused were abruptly recorded, they denied the allegations of movement of wheat. Learned trial Magistrate relied upon Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1970 CrLJ 751 in which facts were as below : "The truck carrying 75 bags of paddy weighing 140 maunds was stopped by the Sub-Inspector of Food and Supplies Department at Samalkha Barrier which is 32 miles from Delhi. Delhi Punjab boundary was at the relevant point of time at about the 18th mile from Delhi. The truck as also the bags were taken into possession by the Sub-Inspector and accused persons were prosecuted for contravention of the Punjab Paddy (Export Control) Order. It was alleged by the prosecution that the consignment of paddy was booked from Malerkotla. to Delhi. In the trial, the driver one of the accused, admitted, that he was given the paddy for being transported to Delhi. Held, that the accused persons could not be; convicted under section 7 as there was no contravention of the Order. The truck loaded with paddy being seized at Samalkha well inside the Punjab boundary there was no "export of paddy," within the meaning of para 2 (a) of the Order. There was merely a preparation on the part of the accused to commit the offence off export. It was quite possible that the 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 Delhi Punjab boundary and not have proceeded further in their jo\urney." Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid authority, the respondents were acquitted.
(3.) STATE has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal. I have heard Sri K. N. Dwivedi for State and Sri P. N. Misra and Sri Virendra Singh for respondents.;