HARISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the aforesaid appeal and the revision relate to the same incident dated 30.12.1997 between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Facts necessary for disposal of these two cases in brief are that on 30.12.1997 on the basis of complaint received from Shivlal Gupta (PW-3), Food Inspector, Ambikapur raided the house of the accused and found 196 quintals of mustard seeds and 11.20 quintals of Ramtilla seeds stashed in his house in contravention of Section 3(1) of Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Vastu Vyapari (Anugyapan Tatha Jamakhori per Nirbandhan) Adesh 1991. Seizure of the same was made under Ex.P-2. After preparing the report to this effect, the Food Inspector forwarded the same to Collector, Ambikapur for necessary action. Subsequently, on the basis of letter (Ex.P-10) written by the Food Inspector to the concerned Station House Officer, FIR (Ex.P-11) was registered against the accused for an offence under Section 3 / 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. At the same time, on the report submitted by the Food Inspector on 31.12.1997 the Collector took cognizance of the matter and found that the accused had stocked the mustard and Ramitlla seeds quantified above, in contravention of the Section

(3.) (1) of Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Vastu Vyapari (Anugyapan Tatha Jamakhori per Nirbandhan) Adesh 1991 and by order dated 31.07.2000 directed for confiscation of its sale proceeds amounting to Rs.1,46,160/-. The said order of the Collector was assailed before the Sessions Judge, Surguja by way of Criminal Appeal No. 99/2000 who vide order dated 16.10.2002 found the same to be just and proper and maintained the same by dismissing the appeal. Similarly, in the parallel proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR, investigation was made, charge was framed and after conclusion of the trial, learned Special Judge also found the charge proved and thus convicted the accused under Section 3 / 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and pay of Rs.2000, plus default stipulation. 3. Counsel for the accused submits that the orders impugned in the aforesaid appeal and the revision are illegal and contrary to the material on record as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that there was any violation of Section 3 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Vastu Vyapari (Anugyapan Tatha Jamakhori per Nirbandhan) Adesh 1991. He further submits that though the accused tried to explain that the mustard and Ramtilla seeds in question were the produces of his own field which he has kept in stock on account of the fact that at the relevant time the proper price was not available in the market but the Collector, the Session Judge as also the Special Judge have not considered the same. Even the mens rea on the part of the accused has not been established by the prosecution for keeping in his house the aforesaid seeds.