VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred by the appellant u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P. C), is directed against the judgment and order dated 19. 6. 1992 passed by the Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Pauri Garhwal in Special criminal Case No. 10 of 1987, State v. Vikram singh, whereby the appellant/accused Vikram singh has been held guilty for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.

(3.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant/accused Vikram Singh was the owner of a Fair Price Shop. On 6. 9. 1987 at about 1. 50 p. m, Supply Inspector Sri D. P. Badola (PW1) along with Sri Jagat Singh pundir, Regional Food Officer and other public witnesses had inspected the said Fair Price shop of the appellant/accused and found several articles in excess quantity than actually shown in the stock register. Some irregularities were also discovered in selling the articles shown to the ration card holders. 15kg 600gm wheat, 3kg 200gm common rice, 6qnt 54kg 200gm superfine rice, 1qnt and 89kg sugar were found in excess on the basis of the records. The recovered items were given in the supardgi of Bharat Singh and fard Ex. Ka-1 was prepared. With the abovesaid facts, an FIR Ex. Ka-4 was lodged in the P. S. Pauri on 8. 9. 1987 at 5. 05 p. m. On the basis of this FIR, chick FIR Ex. Ka-5 was prepared. Necessary entries were made in the GD. Copy of the GD is Ex. Ka-6. The investigation of this case was entrusted to s. I. Rukan Singh, who after inspecting the place of occurrence prepared the site plan ex. Ka-7. Sri V. Venkatchalam, District magistrate, Garhwal vide his order dated 21. 11. 1987 Ex. Ka-8 had granted sanction to prosecute the appellant/accused for the aforesaid irregularities. During the course of investigation, the I. O. had recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he had filed the chargesheet Ex. Ka-9 against the appellant/accused.