GOPAL RAMDAYAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the original accused who has questioned the legality and validity of his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Act for short) and alos for the offence under sections 18 and 20 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981 (Order for short) by invoking the aids of the provisions of section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Code for short). The impugned order of conviction and sentence came to be passed on 14.11.1983 whereby the learned Special Judge Panchmahals at Godhra directed the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 300 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. A few material and relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal may be stated at this stage.

(2.) According to the prosecution case the elder brother of the accused was running a grocery shop in the name of Kedarnath Kirana Bhandar situated opposite S.T. Bus Stand Dahod. On 26.8 at about 1.30 P.M. one Prant Officer of Dahod Mr. Adhiya received an information that kerosene was being sold in black market by unauthorised dealers. Therefore the Prant Officer Mr. Adhiya deputed his driver Bharatsinh Dolatsinh with an amount of Rs. 5/- to buy one litre of kerosene from wherever available. Consequently the prosecution witness Bharatsinh driver of the Prant Officer went to the said shop. At that time accused and one girl aged about 12 years were present in the shop. On inquiry the driver found that kerosene was sold there. Therefoere he requested the accused to sell him one litre of kerosene. It is the case of the prosecution that accused sold one litre of kerosene to the driver and charged Rs. 3/- per litre instead of the control price of Rs. 1.85 ps. per litre. Thereafter the driver went back to the Prant Officer and informed him about the incident. In turn the Prant Officer informed the Supply Officer as well as Police Officer to raid the said shop. Thereafter the Supply Officer and two police Head Constables went to the shop of the accused. Mr. Adhiya also went there alongwith the said officers who questioned the accused. The accused initially denied. Thereafter the police was called and in presence of the police the accused is alleged to have confessed to have sold one litre of kerosene. Subsequently search was taken.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that the shop was situated on the front side of the building whereas the inner side room was used for residential purpose. 15 litres of kerosene was found in each of the two tins. There were 4 tins of kerosene. The Deputy Mamlatdar thereafter seized the kerosene alongwith the measures which were on the tins. Subsequently the Prant Officer lodged the complaint as accused was not holding any licence to sell kerosene. In short the prosecution case was that accused had sold kerosene without licence and he charged more than the price fixed.