He was prosecuted on the allegation that in 1965 he worked his paddy, milling machine and produced 76 quintals of rice but did number sell 60 per cent of the same to the State Government as required by Clause 3 of the Order.
The plea of the respondent was that paddy in question did number belong to him but to the cultivatOrs.
When the matter was taken up in revision, the High Court took the view that Clause 3 of the Order was most unreasonable in so far as it dealt with rice number belonging to the licensed miller.
In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment of the trial magistrate.
All the same the respondent, in the opinion of the trial magistrate, was bound to sell to the Government 60 per cent of the rice manufactured at his mill.
In the opinion of the High Court, the said clause was liable to be struck down for sheer irrationality and illegality.
On March 8, 1966 Marketing Inspector V. D. Tyagi visited the mills premises of the respondent but did number find the said stock of rice there.
The respondent was accordingly companyvicted under Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules for number compliance with Clause 3 of of the Order.
As such, according to him, he was number liable to sell 60 per cent of the rice to the State Government.
The respondent holds a licence for paddy milling machine in Jansath, District Muzaffarnagar.
R. Khanna, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court whereby that companyrt set aside the companyviction of Jai Prakash respondent under Clause 3 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Rice Levy Order, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Order read with Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
The trial magistrate held that the respondent had hulled rice at the rice mill and that there was numberproof that the said rice belonged to the respondent.
