By grinding tur in pieces and I mean chunibharda.
The prosecution challenged the validity of the permit on various grounds all of which were negatived by the High Court and the High Court found that the appellant was in possession of a valid permit which was altered as above and was operative up to 31 12 1946 and which authorised him to export 500 tons of chuni bharda to Kalyan.
Chuni bharda and bharda.
It is number disputed that what was exported by the appellant was a tur product and the burden was therefore on him to prove that he had the required permit.
P 6 that the stuff cannot be called chuni because the stuff companytained chaff and dal.
The term was extended upon 31 12 1946 The word bharda was added after the word Chuni in the description of the companymodity allowed to be exported The destination was changed from Wadi bunder to Kalyan The words to Kalyan for 500 tons were added.
He exported 130 tons under the permit within the extended date, the 30th April 1945 but number further extension was asked for number was the permit returned by him to the Deputy Commissioner.
During transit at Murtazapur Railway station, when the bags were being transhipped from the metre gauge to the broad gauge wagons, a small quantity of grain fell down from some of the bags.
Article E sample shown to the witness .
The police detained the wagons, took specimens of the stuff companytained in the bags and after investigation challenged the appellant, his father Pannalal Gulraj Chokani and the broker Krishna Rao Shankarrao, charging them with the several offences mentioned above.
The evidence of these witnesses is sufficient to establish that the companymodity which was being exported by the appellant came within the description of bharda or chuni bharda and if the appellant was able to prove though the evidence of the prosecution witness themselves that what he was exporting was a companymodity which fell within the description of chuni bharda had discharged the onus of proving that he was exporting the companymodity in question under a valid permit.
10315 for the export of 500 tons of chuni.
I am number an expert about the companyposition of chuni and chuni bharda or bharda.
AIR 1954 SC 23 The Judgment was delivered by BHAGWATI BHAGWATI, J. This was appeal by special leave from the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur companyfirming the companyviction and sentence passed upon the appellant by the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Akola.
The appellant was charged Under S. 7, Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act 24 of 1946, read with Cl.
The appellants father and the broker were also companyvicted of the offence with which they were charged and sentenced to imprisonment and fine.
On the basis of this permit the appellant obtained seven wagons from the Railway authorities and on 25 12 1946 he despatched from Yeotmal to Kalyan 1405 bags of a companymodity which has been variously described as chuni.
I have been loading bags of chuni and chunibharda all my life.
The appellant and the other accused took an appeal to the High Court of Judiature at Nagpur.
Clause 2 1 a , Central Provinces and Berar Foodgrains Export Restriction Order 1943, prohibits export of tur and its products outside the province without a permit issued in that behalf by the Director of Food Supplies, Central Provinces and Berar.
I cannot give the percentage of dal pieces and husk in bharda.
The prosecution however relied upon the report of their Analyser, one Moharikar, P. W. 23, a Testing Bureau Officer attached to the Food Department of the Central Provinces Government and stationed at Nagpur.
The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant for leave to appeal to this Court.
Pannalal Gulraj Chokhani the broker Krishnarao Shankarrao were also charged with abetment of the first offence.
Ramchandra, P. W. 10, Assistant Food Officer at Yeotmal state in cross examination When tur is grinded then the pieces of tur along with the husk form what is known as bharda I know the word bharda from my childhood.
It appears that in October 1946 the appellant applied to the Deputy Commissioner and certain alterations were made in the permit including the following The name of the appellant was substituted as companysignor in place of that his father.
By grinding tur in pieces and mixing it with husk, bharda is formed.
It is companymon ground that on 24 11 1944 the appellants father had obtained in his name a permit No.
The High Court quashed the companyviction of the appellant in regard to the second and the third offences but companyfirmed his companyviction in respect of the first offence and maintained the sentence of imprisonment and fine as also forfeiture of the property.
The 1405 bags which were the subject matter of the charge were ordered to be forfeited.
The appellants father.
Chuni might be companytaining about one per cent of husk and it companytains about 89 per cent of powdered dal the remaining per cent of dal pieces.
The appellant however obtained from this Court special leave to appeal which was granted on 25 9 1950.
The companyviction of the appellants father and the broker was quashed.
The Railway staff suspected that tur dal was being exported and reported the matter to the police.
Once that permit was produced by him the appellant discharged the onus which lay upon him to prove that he had the required permit.
By chuni in Ex.
The Magistrate companyvicted the appellant of all these offences and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine.
I gave the opinion in Ex.
P 6 I meant some broken pieces of dal, and by bhusi therein, I meant husk and powdered dal.
Chuni should companytain at the most four or five per cent of dal or bing pieces of dal which do number properly companye under chuni.
I cannot give what pecentages of husk, dal and dal pieces is in bharda.
My knowledge about this percentage of dal in bharda is based upon the information I was given by the merchants at Wun.
Ratanchand, P. W. 17, stated in cross examination I have sent chuni, chuni bharda and tur and tur dal on many occasions from Darwha.
