Restrictions imposed on the transport of rice from Sambalpur district under a notification issued under S. 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, were reasonable and constitutional, as they were aimed at conserving the stock of rice in the district and preventing extensive smuggling.

ORDER :- These two petitions are heard analogously and will be dealt with in one judgment. Petitioner Sheonath in Cri. Revision No.3 of 1952 is a Fireman of the B.N. Rly. residing at Chakradharpur in Singhbhum district of Bihar State. Petitioner Mahammad Ali in Crl. Revision No.4 of 1952 is also a Fireman of the B.N. Rly. residing at Chakradharpur. On 12-5-1951 a goods train from Bilaspur to Chakradharpur halted at Jharsuguda railway station. There were two engines attached to the goods train, one in the front and another in the rear. The prosecution case is that petitioner Mahammad Ali was working as a Fireman in the rear engine and that he brought four bags of rice and kept them in the rear engine of the goods train. Petitioner Sheonath was said to be working in the front engine of the said goods train and the prosecution case is that he also kept two bags of rice at Jharsuguda in the front engine.

A constable on duty at Jharsuguda railway station named A. Makunda (PW 1) noticed the two petitioners carrying bags of rice to the two engines of the goods train and immediately reported the matter at the G.R.P., Jharsuguda. The A.S.I, on duty Sri S.C. Patnaik (PW 3) immediately went to seize the rice bags. He recovered about one maund and five seers of rice from an open empty wagon close to the rear engine and about ten seers of rice from the front engine.

On the date of the occurrence the following notification (No.41668 S.T. dated 15-11-1950) of the Government of Orissa in the Department of Supply and Transport was in force :

"No.41668 S.T. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-S.(1) of S.3, Essential Supplies (sic) notification of the Government of India in the Department of Food. No.PY 603 (2)-I, dated 21-10-1946 and with the concurrence of the Government of India and in supersession of the notification of Government of Orissa in the Department of Supply and Transport, No.1806 S.T., dated 14-1-1948 the Governor of Orissa is pleased to direct that no movement or transport of any of the foodgrains mentioned in the Schedule to this notification or products thereof by rail, road, water or air or in any other manner from any place in the district of Sambalpur or Koraput to any place outside the said districts shall be allowed except under and in accordance with the conditions of a valid permit issued by the Director of Food Supplies or by any officer authorised by him in that behalf.

SCHEDULE

Rice Jawar

Rice in the husk (Paddy) Bajra

Broken rice (Khuda) Sama

Wheat Baran of paddy

Ragi or Mandia Bran of wheat."

The two petitioners were, therefore, sent up for an offence under S.7 of Act 24 of 1946 for contravention of the aforesaid notification issued under Sub-S.(1) of S.3 of that Act. They were both convicted by a 1st class Magistrate and sentenced to a fine of Rs.200/- each and their appeal to the Court of Sessions was dismissed.

2. Though a faint attempt was made to challenge the facts as stated by the prosecution, I see no reason for disagreeing with the findings of the two lower Courts to the effect that the two petitioners carried some bags of rice each and kept them in the goods train proceeding to Chakradharpur when it was halting at Jharsuguda railway station. In the case against petitioner Mahammad Ali there is a slight discrepancy about the place from where the rice was recovered. The constable on duty (PW 1) stated that he saw petitioner Mahammad Ali keeping the rice bags in the rear engine. But the evidence of the A.S.I. of Police (PW 3) shows that the rice was recovered from an open empty wagon close to the rear engine. This discrepancy, however, is very trivial. The constable was standing on the platform and it may be that when he saw Mahammad Ali proceeding towards the rear engine he assumed that the rice bags were kept in the engine itself and not in the open wagon close to the engine.

His evidence to the effect that it was petitioner Mahammad Ali who took the rice bags to the rear engine side has not been shaken ma