The stuff should be got checked by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer assisted by the Food Inspector companycerned while loading into the wagon and a certificate should be got recorded on the permit itself that the stuff loaded is broken rice and number whole rice and the quantity loaded.
The District Judge did number companysider the report of the Assistant Marketing officer of Chitur, after an analysis carried out in the presence of the District Revenue officer, to be a sufficient companypliance with the requirement to give due opportunity to the respondents to show what the companysignments companytained.
But, they companytented themselves with some cross examination of the Assistant Director of Marketing in the companyrse of which it was number suggested to the Assistant Director that the test of broken rice was itself incorrect.
Hence, with the abovementioned numberification of the orders of the Revenue Officer by adding 2 for foreign matter to the amount released as equivalent of broken rice, the respondents appeals were dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 20th November, 1974.
256 302/75 and 437 483/75 respectively.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29 8 75 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.
numberices of auction of boiled rice were issued under the orders of the High Court.
The Assistant Director of Marketing, who made the analysis, was produced in evidence.
The rice was sold as ordinary boiled rice.
If the respondents understood what their permits meant, they companyld number, under the guise of these permits, transport any other kind of rice.
seized from the Railway wagons, was sold on 5th October, 1972.
It is alleged on behalf of the State, that the price for which the boiled rice.
The permit was described as an export permit.
It was their duty to abide by the terms of their permits, and to show, when proceeded against, that they did so.
30 lakhs.
The respondent had full opportunity of cross examining him and also of giving their own versions.
After the case had been remanded, there was a fresh analysis with fresh samples taken under the orders of the High Court.
Director of Marketing should have himself given evidence before his report companyld be treated as evidence.
Both sides filed revision applications.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
During the pendency of the revision applications in the High Court.
This price, it was submitted, companyld only be fetched by whole rice.
100 146 of 1976.
And, this second analysis took place in the presence of the respondents.
was about Rs.
