In this criminal appeal, the appellant challenged conviction for exporting wheat without paying levy under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, holding that the appellant had admitted the seizure at the inter-state boundary, satisfying the burden of proof.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1183 of 1986
Appellant :- Achchhe Lal AFR Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- V.P. Goel Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.D. Nishad, Sri Sushil Kumar, learned AGAs for the State and perused the record.
By way of instant appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.04.1986 passed by the Special Judge, Deoria, in Criminal Case No.72 of 1986, State Vs. Achchhe Lal, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act but instead of being sentenced, he was released on probation on condition that he will keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the wheat in question was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. He adds that the appellant is the owner of the wheat in question. There was no point to pay levy, as appellant has neither crossed the border of the States of U.P. and Bihar nor such fact has been specifically proved
that while transporting the wheat, the appellant crossed the border between aforesaid States, as such no offence is made out against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant claims that the testimony on record proves innocence of the appellant.
Learned AGA vehemently replied to the argument and submitted that the appellant has admitted fact of ownership of the wheat in question and transportation. He also claims himself to be the owner. It was for the appellant to have shown fact that the levy accrued was paid by him while crossing the inter- state border.
I have also considered the rival submissions and also took note of claim of the appellant and in the light of above; the moot point that arises for consideration of this appeal is confined to the fact whether the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
Facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal as reflected from record appear to be that the accused Achchhe Lal was arrested on 28.01.1984 at about 5:00 a.m. at Chhathiyaw Ghat while exporting 11 bags of wheat to the State of Bihar in contravention of the Control Order made in this behalf. When he was arrested, he was asked about authority for transporting 11 bags of wheat whereupon he could not show any authority and he could not establish fact that he in fact paid any levy on the wheat in question. Therefore, the
accused was charged for committing the offence in contravention to Clause 3 of the U.P. Food Grains Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1976 and Clause 3 of the U.P. Wheat (Levy) Order, 1982.
During course of the proceeding, the accused Achchhe Lal admitted fact of his arrest and seizure of wheat at the alleged time and place but contended that he was carrying wheat in question to Pandari Bazar and not transporting to the State of Bihar. He further contended that the wheat in question was the produce of his own field. The court below, after contemplating the material before it and evaluation of testimony on record vis-a-vis facts and circumstances of the case, recorded the finding of conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and instead of sentencing him, released him on probation on condition to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount.
Resultantly this appeal.
Obviously, in this case, the place, time and day of the arrest are admitted to the appellant. Since the appellant was caught by the police/authority on 28.01.1984 at about 5:00 a.m. at Chhathiyaw Ghat while trying to export 11 bags of wheat to the State of Bihar then it was up to the appellant to have come out with specific fact that he was not
indulged in any such act as alleged against him and the wheat was meant to be sold in Padari Bazar. Fact is that relevant and essential fact of arrest and seizure of wheat bags have been admitted to none other than Sri Krishan Chand Pandey, DW-1.
Constable Chandeshwar PW-1 has proved fact reasonably and satisfactorily to the ambit that the place where from arrest of the accused was effectuated is Chhathiyaw Ghat, inter-state border between the States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The defence witness claimed that the appellant was arrested in the village Mahuli Pande, it is located at a fair distance from Chhathiyaw Ghat. This statement disclosed by the defence witness is itself in direct contrast to the claim made by the appellant himself and the admission so made that he was arrested from Chhathiyaw Ghat on the aforesaid date and time. Therefore, to claim that arrest of the accused was effectuated from village Mahuli Pande, the place lying at short distance from Chhathiyaw Ghat is not relevant and admissible as such. Some claim made on behalf of the appellant that the police personnel/authority who arrested the accused were demanding Rs.1000/- from the accused, has not been proved and the claim has been made just to blur the proceeding that took place against the accused which on the face of categorical admission made by the defence itself loses significance. Blaming in such manner is an afterthought.
This fact of recovery of wheat on 28.01.1984 at 5:00 a.m. from Chhatiyaw Ghat is unequivocally established in this case and basing appellant's conviction on the aforesaid particular aspect of admission, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and gave him the advantage of relevant provisions of the Probation of the Offenders Act and asked him to furnish bond for Rs.2000/- with two sureties each in the like amount for one year period commencing from the date of delivery of judgement i.e. 11th April, 1986.
The impugned judgment of conviction is dated 11.04.1987, meaning thereby that the period of probation prescribed was to commence from 12.04.1986 and that way the period prescribed for keeping peace and being of good behaviour was to expire on 11.04.1987. Consequently, the sentence so imposed in the shape of probation stood suffered and exhausted.
The finding of conviction is based on material on record and the same cannot be faulted with, therefore, no interference is required, as almost every particular facts are admitted to the appellant himself. However, the trial court has shown leniency to the appellant while convicting, which leniency has not been violated and there is nothing on record, which may indicate that after the delivery of judgement in April, 1986 upto further period of one year when the probation period remained in force the appellant committed
any violation or acted in breach of the terms and conditions of the probation bond.
Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.04.1986 passed by the Special Judge, Deoria, in Criminal Case No.72 of 1986, State Vs. Achchhe Lal is hereby affirmed. The instant appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 rkg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the special local law attracts in a case of exporting wheat out of State without complying with levy and transport.
Whether the appellant satisfied the burden of proof to negative the prosecution case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Achchhe Lal
State
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
