Prem Chand vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Prem Chand and Dharam Pal were convicted by Special Judge, Gurdaspur, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for three months each. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed this appeal.

The prosecution story is that on May 20, 1985, S.I. Gurjit Singh of Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh, District Gurdaspur, organised a Nakabandi on the road leading from Narot Jaimal Singh to Nagri (J&K). The Nakabandi was laid on a point 50 yards away from the boundary of State of Jammu and Kashmir. At about 4 a.m. on May 21, 1985, Truck No. JKP7231 came from Nagri side. S.I. Gurjit Singh flashed torch light at the truck and ordered its deriver to halt the truck. Prem Chand and Dharam Pal were found sitting beside him. The truck was loaded with 43 bags of paddy. Paddy was weighed at the spot. Samples were taken and sent for analysis. A import and export of paddy was prohibited, the appellants committed violation of the provisions of Punjab Paddy and Rice Export and Import Control JUDGMENTThey were challenged, tried and convicted by the Special Judge.

Prosecution in suport of its case examined H.C. Yash Pal PW1, who stated that he was a member of the Nakabandi party. The nakabandi was held on the road leading to village Nagri (J&K) from Narot Jaimal Singh at a distance of 100 yards from Fathepur Chowk. At about 4 a.m. on May 21, 1985, truck No. JKP7231 came from village Nagri side. Both the appellants were in the truck. The truck was stopped. It contained Paddy which was taken into possession. He further stated that village Bakhri and Janial are in Punjab and are situated quite close to Jammu and Kashmir border. He also stated that if one comes from villages Bakhri and Janial and has to go Narot Jaimal Singh, he has to pass through Fatehpur Chowk, and the Nakabandi was held within the revenue limits of Taloor. Village Taloor is in Punjab. He pleaded ignorance to the fact whether the paddy belonged to Ashwani Kumar of village Bakhri and as to whether the paddy was being taken to Dinanagar for sale in the market. He also stated that paddy was Basmati and not Parmal. PW2 S.I. Gurjit Singh also supported the prosecution case. PW6 J.K. Soodan, Junior Analyst, Food and Supplies Department, Gurdaspur, stated that the sample of the Paddy seized were Parmal and he analysed the same. Rest of the PWs are formal.

After close of the prosecution, the appellants in their statements denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that the Paddy in question belonged to one Ashwani Kumar of village Bakhri which falls within the area of Punjab State and is close to village Nagri situated in Jammu and Kashmir State. The Paddy was being taken to Dinanagar for sale in the market and one has to pass through Fatehpur Chowk in order to come to Dinanagar from village Bakhri.

In defence Ashwani Kumar DW1 stated that he sent Prem Chand driver with 43 bags of Parmal Paddy for sale to Dinanagar market. He and his wife own 10 killas of land in village Bakhri. As one has to pass through Nagri and Fatehpur Chowk for going to Dinanagar from his village. So the Paddy was seized at Fatehpur Chowk while being sent to Dinanagar. DW2 Sham Lal Commission Agent of Dinanagar has stated that according to the record of Market Committee, the price of Parmal in March, 1985 was Rs. 168/ to 170/ per quittal. DW3 Tilak Raj, resident of Ratia, Jammu and Kashmir, deposed that he brought purchase copies of the rice for the year 1985. From March, 1985, to May, 1985, the rate of Parmal in Jammu and Kashmir was Rs. 170/ to Rs. 180/ per quintal. He is a Rice Miller and doing business under the name and style of Brri Brahman J&K.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the case of the prosecution is that Nakabandi was arranged at a distance of 100 yards from Fatehpur Chowk. It is not stated by either of the two witnesses produced by the prosecution to support its case whether the Nakabandi was arranged towards village Bakhri from Fatehpur Chowk or towards the other side. It is not disputed that if one is to come from village Bakhri and he has to go Mandi in Punjab he has to pass through Fatehpur Chowk. He has further pointed out that none of the PWs has started that he saw the truck coming from Jammu and Kashmir. His contention is that the rice belonged to Ashwani Kumar, who is a resident of village Bakhri and it was being sent for sale to the Mandis at Dinanagar and Narot Jaimal Singh and as it was not imported from Jammu and Kashmir no offence is made out against the appellants.

I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Prosecution has examined only two witnesses, i.e., H.C. Yash Pal PW1 and S.I. Gurjit Singh PW2 to support its case. Both of them have stated that they cannot deny the suggestion that the rice belonging to Ashwani Kumar was being brought from village Bakhri for sale. They have not stated that they had seen the truck in Jammu and Kashmir Territory. They have only stated that they saw the truck coming from Jammu and Kashmir side. According to the PWs village Bakhri is on the border of Punjab 11/2 kilometres from Jammu and Kashmir border and if one is to take the produce to the market from village Bakhri, one has to pass through Fatehpur Chowk. It is not clear whether the rod/passage coming from village Bakhri joins the main road or not. There is no evidence that there was any passage from the point of Nakabandi upto the border of Jammu and Kashmir. The prosecution evidence does not exclude the possibility that the rice might have come from village Bakhri and the truck might be on its way to the markets in Punjab towns. The prosecution should have led clear and cogent evidence to exclude this possibility that the rice did not come from village Bakhri. The report of the analyst and the statement of J.K. Soodan show that the Paddy seized was of Parmal. PW1 H.C. Yash Pal and PW2 S.I. Gurjit Singh both have unequivocally stated that the Paddy seized was not Parmal, but was Basmati. There is no explanation for this contradiction. DW1 Ashwani Kumar has stated that the seized Paddy belonged to him and he sent the same for sale. There is nothing on the file to disbelieve this witness.

A comparison of the rates of Parmal in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir will also show that Parmal was costing more in Jammu and Kashmir than in Punjab. There appears to be no reason why a commodity which is cheaper in one State i.e. Punjab shall be exported from a State i.e. Jammu and Kashmir, where it is dearer. All these circumstances make the prosecution case doubtful.

In the circumstances of the case, the appellant are entitled to benefit of doubt. Their appeal is accepted and they are acquitted of the charge.