1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner owned a rice mill at Pulhat, Dinajpur. Under a contract, dated the 20th October 1965, he was appointed a miller under the Food Directorate of the Government of Fast Pakistan. During 1965-66 he took delivery of 44,705 maunds and 14 seers of different varieties of paddy for being crushed with the stipulation that he would give the Food Directorate 28,339 maunds, 11 seers and 9 chhataks of rice according to the ratio mentioned in the contract. The petitioner delivered certain quantity of rice by instalments, and he was still to account for 4,606 maunds, 18 seers and 9 chhataks of rice. On the 19th August 1966, the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food, along with two other officers of the Food Directorate, went to the petitioner's mill and made a physical verification, but found no quantity of rice whatever in the mill premises and the godown. It was alleged that the petitioner disposed of the Government rice as the market price thereof shot up and thereby committed breach of trust. He was, accordingly, placed on trial for an offence under section 407 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Dinajpur convicted him under the said section and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 31 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000 and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one year. It was also directed that that a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 shall by paid to the Food Directorate if the fine is realised. On appeal, the Sessions Judge maintained the conviction and the sentences. The petitioner's criminal revision was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, but the substantive sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for six months. The petition for special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.
2. In this case, the petitioner did not dispute the entrustment of paddy, nor did he dispute the disappearance from the stock 4,606 and odd maunds of rice due to the Food Directorate. He, however, took the plea that he was ill in February-March, 1966 during which period his manager Abdul Ghann might have dishonestly disposed of the rice, but he himself did not commit any breach of trust. This plea was rejected by all the Courts below. After the petitioner had recovered from illness, he himself looked after his business from April 1966 till the date of verification of the stock on the 19th August 1966 by the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food. During this period, he did not take any step whatsoever against his manager Abdul Ghani for the complete disappearance of rice from the stock. Nor did he report about it to the Food Directorate or to any other authority. The petitioner's absolute silence during the long period was not compatible with his innocence.
3. It was next contended that the petitioner's liability for his failure to deliver the rice is a civil liability under clause 6(c) of the contract. The compensation payable for short delivery under the contract does not exclude criminal liability.