NARENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 28/2/2002 passed by Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Special Case No. 11/97. By the impugned judgment the appellant/accused- Narendra Kumar Gupta was convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_145_LAWS(CHH)11_2019_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 27/11/1996, one complaint (Ex.P-2) was sent by some of the villagers of village Parsa to the Collector (Sarguja-Ambikapur) stating that that accused- Narendra Prasad was found selling the fertilizers (Urea and phosphat) illegally, and doing the black-marketing of the same. On the basis of which, the then SDM Ambikapur directed Shri Bhupat Singh Dhurve (PW-2), Assistant Director (Agriculture) to conduct the raid at the place of accused- Narendra Kumar Gupta, village-Parsa. On 13/12/1996 the raid was conducted, in which, the appellant/accused was found in possession of 18 bags of Urea weighing 9 Quintal and 54 bags of fertilizer (super Phosphate) in his house and godown. Seizure memo Ex. P/3 and P/4 were prepared and thereafter recorded statement of the accused vide Exs. P/5 and P/6 on the same day. After preparing Naksa Panchanama, the report (Ex. P/7) was submitted by Shri B.S. Dhruv (PW-2) before the Collector, Sarguja and requested for grant of permission to lodge the FIR against the accused. After seizure of fertilizers and obtaining permission from the Collector, Bhupat Singh Dhurve, Assistant Director (Agriculture) (PW-2) lodged FIR (Ex. P/11) against the appellant. As per document (Ex. P/9), a direction was issued by the State Government regarding distribution of fertilizers to the villagers. In the said document the guidelines are that "now distribution of Urea to the extent of 100 % shall be distributed through Cooperative Societies and the private businessman can not avail the facility of distribution of Urea to the villagers without obtaining prior permission from the concerned Cooperative Society".

(3.) After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sec. 3(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "EC Act, 1995") against the accused/appellant. After filing of charge sheet, learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 7 of EC Act, 1955 for committing the breach of fertilizer Control Order, 95 stating that he was found selling the fertilizers without obtaining proper licence for selling the same in accordance with the Control Order, 95.