OM PRAKASH SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.35/1997 vide order dated 14.03.2000, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 months with fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month.

(2.) The case of prosecution is this that Food Inspector Sanjay Sharma PW/1 along with Food Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Thakur PW/6, Gopal Prasad Chourasiya PW/7 and Manohar Lal PW/3 inspected the factory of appellant where the Namkeen and Sev was manufactured. He saw three big stoves being utilized for manufacturing the items Namkeen and Sev and the used fuel was blue coloured kerosene oil. A panchnama Ex.P/2 was recorded on the spot and kerosene oil in total 35 liter was found and stored in several containers, the report Ex.P/4 was submitted to the Collector (Food Controller) and sent a memo Ex.P/3 to Superintendent of Police, Raipur to register the offence and to do the needful. Superintendent of Police, Raipur forwarded memo as Ex.P/10 to P.S.-Gudiyari. On the basis of these memos, PS-Gudiyari lodged FIR Ex.P/11, registering the offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the appellant. Blue coloured kerosene oil, which was seized on the spot by the raiding party vide Ex.P/8 were seized by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.P/7 and handed over. Spot map Ex.P/9 was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted.

(3.) Trial Court read out the substance of accusation under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the appellant, appellant denied the charge. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. On examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., appellant denied all the incriminating evidence against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. No evidence was led in defence. Impugned judgment was passed in which appellant was convicted under the Sections charged and sentenced with RI for 4 months and fine of Rs.450/- with order to further undergo RI for 1 month, in default of payment of fine.