GOPAL PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) competent to try the case under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the E.C. Act') in Special Case No.127 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge after holding the appellant guilty for violation of M.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction of Hoarding) Order, 1991, convicted him under Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional S.I. for one month.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused/appellant is a businessman of Ramanjuganj city. On 21.12.1995, Food Inspector Kanhaiyalal Jaisawal (PW-2) inspected the premises of the appellant and during the course of said inspection it is alleged that in the stock register, there was entry of rice to the tune of 4.5 quintals, but on the physical verification of godown only 2.5 quintals stock was there, no bill was issued about said rice. It is further alleged that on inspection 2.50 quintals of Alsi, 80 kgs. of Maize (Makka), 1.80 quintals of Mutter, 80 kgs. of Urad Dal, 80 kgs. of Jawa, 1.80 quintals of Jwar, 63 bags of wheat, 110 quintals of groundnut and 1 quintal of Sarson were found. There was no mention of the aforesaid articles in the said stock register and thus there was violation of the conditions No. 3, 4 and 6 of the M.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction of Hoarding) Order, 1991.

(3.) After due investigation, a complaint case was lodged against the accused/appellant in police station, Ramanujganj, District Surguja by the Food Inspector, thereafter, the charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant on 28.06.1996. Appellant was charge sheeted, he has denied the charge and has taken plea of false implication and presented four defence witnesses for his defence.