MUKAND LAL Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, judgment and order dated 22nd March, 1999 of the Special court, Delhi convicting the appellant Mukand Lal and his firm, "m/s. Chanda general and Provision Store", under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of clause 9 of Delhi Specified Articles (Regulation of distribution) Order, 1981 and sentencing the appellant Mukand Lal to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, as well as, fine of rs. 25,000/- imposed upon the aforesaid firm of the appellant Mukand Lal has been assailed.

(2.) ON 24th March 1989, Appellant, Mukand Lal, was holding fair price shop license No. 1707 and was running his fair price shop in the name and style of "m/s. Chanda General Provision Store at Shop No. 2670, Main Bazar, Village sadipur, Delhi and on the above said date, at about 8. 15 AM, he opened his aforesaid fair price shop and illegally removed the eight bags of wheat from his shop on a handcart which was stopped in Z Block in New Ranjit Nagar, by the raiding team of the Anti Hoarding Cell of Delhi Food and Supplies Department as they had secret information about it. This wheat was meant for being sold at controlled price at the fair price shop but was being illegally taken away to be sold in open market at a higher price. The weight of the recovered eight wheat bags was found to be 7 quintals and 89 kgs. The relevant record of the fair price shop of the appellant was checked and the case was registered and the aforesaid wheat bags were seized and after investigation, police report was forwarded to the court and this case was tried summarily and the appellant denied these allegations.

(3.) DURING the summary trial, four witnesses were examined and the main witness was Inspector R. K. Jain of the Enforcement Branch of Food and Supply Department, who had headed the raiding party. Appellant in his statement before the trial court contended that the prosecution story was not believed in the departmental proceedings against him and he has been given a clean chit. However, appellant did not lead any evidence nor had placed on record any order passed by the Food and Supply Department giving clean chit to the appellant. After the trial, appellant has been convicted and sentenced as indicated above.