SANATKUMAR D JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing this petition, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.10.1993 passed by the Special Judge, Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Case No.12 of 1992 whereby the learned Special Judge held the accused guilty for having contravened Clause 3 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for ten days. However, he was acquitted of the charge about selling the kerosene at higher rate.

(2.) THE brief facts rising to filing of this appeal are such that the Supply Inspector, accompanied by Zonal Officer and Supply Inspector, had visited the house of the accused on 11.12.1990 at about 5.00 p.m. and found that 197 litres of kerosene was stored in 8 drums, in one plastic kerba and one tin. It was found that the accused did not possess any licence for storing the stock of kerosene and it was seized by drawing panchanama in presence of panchas. During the interrogation, the accused admitted that he had purchased the stock of kerosene from different hawkers and that he was selling kerosene at the rate of Rs.3/- per litre. THE muddammal was seized after following due procedure of law and report was submitted to the higher authority. THE Food and Civil Supplies Controller authorized the respondent no.2-Mr.A.I.Patel to lodge a complaint against the accused for the alleged contravention and pursuant to the same, the complaint came to be filed on 1.2.92. THE plea of the accused was recorded at Exh.4 wherein the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Ms.Patel for the appellant submits that the possession of 197 litres of kerosene was found from the house of the appellant and for that the appellant has given sufficient explanation that the stock was not belonging to him but the owner of the stock is hawker Rajkumar. She submitted that though this explanation was advanced by the accused, the hawker Rajkumar was not examined and the trial Court has not considered the same and committed error in convicting the accused. She also submitted that only on the basis of the deposition of government servant, the trial Court has convicted the accused though no articles used for selling of kerosene were found from the house of the appellant nor any customer was found who came for purchasing the kerosene. She also submitted that the learned Judge has erred in not properly appreciating the explanation given by the accused who did not know Gujarati and only knew Hindi. LEARNED APP Mr.Pujari submitted that after discussing the evidence in detail, the trial Court has convicted the accused and minimum sentence is awarded and therefore the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and not required to be interfered with.