BUDHDEO SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the Jharkhand High Court dated 8.8.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1996 (R) by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal partly, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the co-accused and upholding the conviction and sentence of the present appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.3.1996 and 26.3.1996 respectively passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in connection with Kamdara P.S. Case No. 31/1992 (G.R. No. 11/1992).

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was dealing in public distribution shop. Since the appellant became the Government servant, the license for the said shop was cancelled in March, 1992. On 10.5.1992, a raid was conducted at the appellant s house and during the search a drum containing 180 liters of kerosene oil was found and, therefore, an FIR was, accordingly, registered against the appellant and his father on the same day under the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as there was a violation of the provisions of the Bihar Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 which provided that a person other than a licensee, was permitted to store kerosene oil maximum up to 37 liters. The appellant and his co-accused denied the charges. However, the trial court vide judgment and order dated 25.3.1996 and 26.3.1996 convicted the appellant and his father for violation of the aforesaid provisions and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo R.I. for one month.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the appellant and his father filed the criminal appeal No. 24/1996 (R) before the Patna High Court. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi disposed of the said appeal vide judgment and order dated 8.8.2003 by which it acquitted the co- accused Balchand Sahu - father of the appellant, but maintained the conviction and sentence so far as the present appellant was concerned. Hence this appeal.