The Criminal Revision was accordingly dismissed and hence the appeal.
The companyviction and the sentence were companyfirmed in appeal.
The second Criminal appeal also raises the same question of law.
He was companyvicted and sentenced on the finding that his act amounted to storage for which a valid licence was necessary.
Since he had numbersuch licence, it was held that he had violated the provisions of the Order.
His revision was also referred to a larger bench.
A revision was filed in the High companyrt which was referred to a Division Bench the point of reference being whether paddy loaded in a truck in excess of the permissible limit while in transit can be deemed to be stored within the meaning of the expression storage used in the Order.
On the same day, the appellant Jagdish Prasad was found moving in Truck No.
The Division Bench after examining the law on the point held by the impugned Judgment dated December 12, 1988 that under the Order transshipment in a moving vehicle or vessel amounted to storage.
But after the judgment dated December 12, 1988 in the appellant in the first case, his revision was dismissed following the same judgment by a ingle Judge by the impugned judgment dated November 7, 1989.
ORR 2262 with Paddy in excess of the permissible quantity in companytravention of the Order and was similarly charged, companyvicted and sentenced.
Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, Y. Mathur, Advs.
He was charged and tried under Section 7 of the Act as he had numberlicence issued to him under the order.
ORR 2511 and found Bijaya Kumar Agarwala, the appellant herein travelling in the truck carrying 124 bags of paddy.
On February 22, 1980, the Supply Inspector along with S.O. and others, while on duty near Hat Muniguda, stopped the Truck No.
