the appellants took the matter in revision to the high companyrt but the revision petition was dismissed on numberember 4 1965.
sawan ram chiranji lal and they were also prosecuted.
the appellant malkiat singh then came driving truck number p.n.u.
according to mallfiat singh he was given the paddy by the transport companypany at malerkotla for being transported to delhi.
the companysignee of the paddy was messrs devi dayal brij lal of delhi.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated numberember 4 1965 of the punjab high companyrt in criminal revision number 263 of 1965 and criminal misc.
as the export of paddy was contrary to law the sub inspector took into possession the truck as also the bags of paddy.
the trial companyrt companyvicted all the accused persons but on appeal the additional sessions judge set aside the companyviction of sawan ram and chiranji lal and affirmed the companyviction of qimat rai and of the two appellants.
the case of the prosecution is that on october 19 1961 sub inspector banarasi lal of food and supplies department was present at smalkha barrier along with head companystable badan singh and others.
babu singh admitted that he was sitting in the truck as a cleaner.
224 of 1965.
it is alleged that the consignment of paddy was booked from lakerkotla on october 18 1961 by qimat rai on behalf of messrs sawan ram chiranji lal.
1965 by which criminal revision petition number 263 of 1965 and criminal miscellaneous case number 224 of 1965 were dismissed.
babu singh was the cleaner of that truck.
the truck carried 75 bags of paddy weighing about 140 maunds.
in the trial court malkiat singh admitted that he was driving the truck which was loaded with 75 bags of paddy and the truck was intercepted at samalkha barrier.
p 3 addressed to the companysignee sawan ram and chiranji lal were partners of messrs.
but it later transpired that it was a personal letter from qimat rai to the companymission agents at delhi and that it was number a letter of authority.
the transport company also gave him a letter assuring him that it was an authority for transporting the paddy.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ramaswami j. this appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the punjab high companyrt dated numberember 4.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 186 of 1966.
it is alleged that qimat rai also gave a letter ex.
pritam singh safeer for the appellants.
harbans singh and r.n.
number.
sachthey for the respondent.
