Permit compliance for regulated rice required proof that seized consignments matched the permit terms; confiscation was upheld.

Where transport of regulated rice depended on permit terms, the SC held that the person relying on the permit had to prove the seized consignments were actually within its scope. The evidence showed substantial quantities of whole rice, not merely broken rice, so the respondents failed to establish that the goods matched the permits. Applying the control order and the burden rule under the Evidence Act for facts especially within the respondents' knowledge, the Court rejected the High Court's speculative approach to the stock composition and upheld confiscation of the consignments.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to transport the seized rice under permits for "broken rice" and whether the confiscation orders under the control order were sustainable.

Analysis: The permits required transport of rice strictly in accordance with their terms, and the respondents, who were engaged in the rice trade, were expected to know what their permits covered. The evidence, including the analysis by the Assistant Director of Marketing and the accepted grading handbook, showed that the consignments contained substantial quantities of whole rice and not merely broken rice. Under the control order, export of rice from the specified area required a permit for the rice actually transported, and Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the respondents to establish facts especially within their knowledge, including their claim that the consignments were within the permits. The High Court erred in treating the mixture as outside the mischief of the control order and in declining confiscation on speculative reasoning about the composition of the stock.

Conclusion: The respondents failed to show that the consignments were covered by their permits, and the confiscation orders were sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where transport of essential goods is regulated by permit, the person relying on the permit must prove that the goods seized were actually within its scope, and a substantial mixture of unauthorized goods attracts confiscation under the control order.

---