The petitioner who was the first accused in C.C. No. 146 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam was convicted for the contravention of an order promulgated by the Provincial Government No. 2660, A/1945 (C.S.), published at pages 581 and 582 to Part II of Fort’ St. George Gazette, dated 4th September, 1945, which had been continued as an offence by section 7(1) of Central Act XXIV of 1946 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the Court of Session, West Tanjore and the present revision is to set aside the aforesaid confirmation of the conviction and sentence.

P.W. 1 was the Grain Purchase Tahsildar of Tanjore in October, 1947, and P.W. 2 was the Inspector of Police, C.I.D. X Branch, Tanjore, at the same time. On 3rd October, 1947, at about 10-30 p.m. both P.Ws. 1 and 2 proceeded along the flood bank shown in the plan Exhibit D-5 and found four cart loads of paddy at the place marked 46/5 on the said flood bank. According to the witnesses, the double bullock carts had gone down the bank in a northern direction into the padugai lands which intervene between the Coleroon river in the north and the flood bank in the south. To the north of the Coleroon river is the Ramanoor Island which formed part of the Trichinopoly district. By the time P.Ws. 1 and 2 reached the place in question, the bullocks had been unyoked and the second and the third accused who’ had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge’ were near the cart. On being questioned accused 2 and 3 told P.W. 1 that the paddy belonged to the first accused. Little later, the petitioner came on the scene and admitted that the paddy was his. He was asked to produce the transport permit, because, according to the witnesses, the carts were proceeding towards Trichinopoly district. He did not produce any such permit, but said that the paddy was being taken to Kumbakonam. Since the first accused did not produce the A.A. permit on demand and after P.Ws. I and 2 waited for an hour, the paddy was seized under the Mahazar, Exhibit P-1, and the witnesses arranged that the paddy should be taken to Kumbakonam to be produced in Court. On this evidence, the lower courts have held that the first accused was attempting to transport paddy in contravention of the Government Order abovementioned. Exhibit P-4, clause 1 of which is in the following terms:

“No person shall with effect from the date of this order transport paddy . . . . from any place within the limits of any of the districts specified in column (1) of Schedule 1 . . . . to any place within the limits of any other district in the Province of Madras except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies......”

It is not disputed that there was »no permit for the transport of paddy from the Tanjore district to the Trichinopoly district, which lies to the north of the Coleroon river at a distance of six furlongs from the flood bank. Half the river belongs to the Tanjore district and the other half on the northern side belongs to the Trichinopoly district on the principle of ad medium filum. The learned Sessions Judge found that the act of the second and third accused did not constitute an attempt to transport paddy; but that the first accused committed the offence in question. The learned Judge found that the carts had a considerable distance to go before they crossed the boundary of the district and it was certainly possible for the drivers to repent of their intention to take the carts to Trichinopoly district and give up the attempt. It was further found that when the carts were seized, they were not even moving. Following the decision in Queen Empress v. Ramakka1, the learned Judge was of opinion that the action of accused 2 and accused 3 would not amount to an attempt. In paragraph 19 of his judgment, the learned Sessions Judge finds on evidenc