KANBI PATEL PRATAPRAI BHAGWANJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant-original accused has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded in Summary Case No. 3 of 1985 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Court) at Bhavnagar, by invoking aids of Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short).

(2.) The appellant is the original accused and respondent No. 2 is the original complainant. For the brevity's sake and convenience, they will be referred to as the accused and the complainant as they are arraigned before the Special Court. The accused is a licensed dealer and is running a fair price shop and dealing in foodgrains, oil, kerosene etc. at village Kamlej in Bhavnagar district since 1980. The complainantinspector in the Civil Supplies Department at Bhavnagar made a surprise visit of the shop of the accused on 28-11-1984 and noticed some irregularities in maintenance of daily stock registers, accounts and maintenance of copies of bills. Therefore, he held an inquiry. The accused also made a confessional statement admitting irregularities and violation of provisions of law. The confessional Statement of the accused recorded by the complainant is produced at Exh. 11. After obtaining requisite sanction, a complaint was lodged by the Supply Inspector before Vartej Police Station on 5-4-1985. The accused was charge-sheeted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court) at Bhavnagar in Summary Case No. 3 of 1985. The charge was framed against the accused by the Special Court for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short) to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution relied on the evidence of four prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence of bills, confessional statement of the accused, and after examining the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, the Special Court found the accused guilty and passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence on 28-11-1986. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the accused is held guilty and is sentenced to 3 months' R. I. and fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default, further R. I. for seven days for the offences punishable under Sec. 3(2)(c) read with Sec. 7 of the Act read with Clauses 22 and 23 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 ('1981 Order' for short). Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the original accused has now come up in this appeal before this Court challenging its legality and validity.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the accused Mr. D. U. Shah has raised the following contentions : 1. That the alleged confessional statement of the accused recorded by the complainant is hit by the provisions of Secs. 22 and 25 of the Code and also violative of the Constitutional guarantee enshrined in Art. 20(2) of the Constitution. 2. That there is no compliance of the procedural requirement for seizure as no Panchas were called and no Panchnama was drawn. 3. That the impugned conviction and sentence judgment is otherwise also vulnerable as there is no reliable and trustworthy evidence to transfix the culpability of the accused for the said offences. 4. The aforesaid contentions are countenanced by the learned A.P.P. Mr. B. D. Desai. 5. The prosecution has relied on the confessional statement which is produced at Exh. 11 which is challenged on the following premises : 1. That the Supply Inspector-complainant was not authorised to record such a statement. 2. That the confessional statement is hit by the provisions of Secs. 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. 3. That the said confessional statement is also violative of the constitutional guarantee enshrined under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution.