RAMESHKUMAR HARJIVANDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Criminal Revision Application under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) filed by the original accused who has been convicted and sentenced by the Judge of Special Court constituted under Sec. 12(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act") by rendering a judgment dated 7-2-1990 in Special Criminal Case No. 110 of 1989 which was there pending on his file. The Criminal Revision Petitioner was original accused in Special Criminal Case No. 110 of 1990. The Revision Opponent is the State i.e., the Prosecution. Therefore, the parties will be referred to hereinafter as the prosecution and accused respectively for the sake of convenience. By the said judgment the accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Act for a contravention of Sec. 3 of the Kerosene (Restriction on Use) Order, 1966 (for short, "Order") and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months. Formerly, the accused had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1990. Looking to clause (b) of Sec. 376 of Cr.P.C., no appeal lies in case in which accused has been convicted by a Court of Sessions for imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. Therefore, on or about 6-3-1990 this Court (Coram: J. U. Mehta, J.), granted permission to the accused to convert his Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1990 into Revision, and therefore, said Criminal Appeal has been converted to this present Criminal Revision Application.

(2.) The facts leading to this present Criminal Revision Application in a nutshell are as follows :- On or about 12-12-1988, at about 5 p.m., the complainant, Shri R. S. Sindhi, P.S.I., was on his duty at Kalupur Overbridge, Ahmedabad. Along with him, certain traffic police constables and one expert from Forensic Science Laboratory ("F.S.L." for short) were also present. The complainant was in- charge of the raid at the relevant time to take action against auto-rickshaws which were found plying with kerosene as fuel. It is further the case of the prosecution that at that time one rickshaw bearing R.T.O. registration No. GRS 3513 was seen coming from Amdupura side. That rickshaw was being driven by the accused who is the present revision-petitioner. The complainant and the persons who were accompanying him, found that the rickshaw was emitting huge smoke from its silencer. On seeing this rickshaw, the complainant stopped that rickshaw at the place where they were standing. At that time some sample fuel from the tank of the rickshaw was subjected to its preliminary examination by the expert of the F.S.L. who was accompanying the complainant. The expert of the F.S.L. opined that the fuel which was being used by driver/owner of the said rickshaw was adulterated with kerosene. Therefore, in the presence of two panch witnesses sample of fuel from the tank of the rickshaw was taken by the complainant. It was thereafter duly sealed by affixing one slip bearing the signatures of the two panch witnesses and the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant drew the panchnama in the presence of the panch witnesses with respect to what was found and what the formalities were done. The same was signed by the complainant and two panch witnesses. The complainant, thereafter, lodged his complaint against accused in Ahmedabad City Sheherkotda Police Station. That complaint came to be registered as C.R. No. II 805 of 1988 for offences punishable under Secs. 3 & 7 of the Act. Thereafter, the said case, which was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, was investigated by P.S.I. Shri V. K. Sonwane and he charge-sheeted the accused to the Court of Special Judge on or about 5th October, 1989. That charge- sheet came to be registered as Special Criminal Case No. 110 of 1989.

(3.) The learned Judge of the Special Court tried the case summarily as per the provisions contained in Chapter 21 of Cr.P.C., read with clause (b) of Sec. 12(AA) of the Act. Therefore, he recorded plea of the accused at Exh. 1 on 14-12-1989. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, the prosecution examined four witnesses in support of its case by which plea was recorded. The prosecution led documentary evidence also. On completion of the recording the evidence of prosecution further statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Act was recorded on 6-12-1990. Thereafter, the arguments of both the parties were heard at length by the learned Judge of the trial Court, and thereafter, after appreciating the evidence led by prosecution, the learned Judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion that case against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, by rendering his judgment dated 7-2-1990 he convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.