CHAKO Vs. N R POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to a judgment and order dated 27-7-2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court, Chickmagalur in Cr. A. No. 60 of 2008, whereby, a judgment and order dated 22-5-2008 passed in C.C. No. 12 of 2008 by the JMFC, N.R. Pura, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act') was confirmed. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and pay fine of Rs. 500/- with default clause. The prosecution case against the petitioner-accused was initiated on the basis of a report submitted by Hiremath/P.W. 4, alleging inter alia that, on 8-8-2007, at about 7.00 p.m., on credible information, when he conducted raid on the house of the accused, he was found in possession of about 51 liters of kerosene in 4 plastic cans, in his house situated at B.H. Kaimara, for sale, without any valid pass, permit or licence. Thereafter, P.W. 4 returned to the Police Station, registered a case against the accused, under the provisions of the Act. Further investigation was taken over by the PSI-P.W. 6, who, upon completion of investigation filed charge-sheet for the offences, noticed supra.

(2.) Summons having been served, the petitioner appeared in the Trial Court and vide order dated 7-2-2008, learned Magistrate put the accusation and the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 9 witnesses were examined, 7 documents and 6 material objects were marked. After closure of prosecution case, accused was examined. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, was recorded on 20-5-2008 and it is a case of mere denial. No defence evidence was adduced. Considering the rival contentions and the record of the case, the learned Trial Judge found the petitioner guilty. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced, as noted earlier. An appeal filed there against did not bring any relief.

(3.) Sri Shivakumar Deshmukh, learned Advocate, firstly, contended that, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is inconsistent and that the allegation against the petitioner has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Secondly, the Courts below have committed illegality in holding that the burden is on the accused to rebut the evidence against him. Thirdly, the sentence imposed is irrational, in view of the decision in the case of Harivallabha and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2005 10 SCC 330 and that the accused ought to have been dealt with under provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C.