SINDHI VASUDEV CHOITHRAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is preferred by the appellant -orig.accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') under Section 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06th August, 1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Special Criminal Case No.4 of 1994, whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/ -and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for six months, under Section 7 and 12(AA) for the breach of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) SHRI H.N. Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri P.M. Thakkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has taken me through the oral as well as documentary evidence led during the course of trial and main grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of appeal. It is argued that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge is illegal, bad in law and there is incorrect appreciation of the evidence and, therefore, the same is required to be set aside.

(3.) SHRI H.N. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has concentrated his arguments mainly on legality and validity of the evidence as well as on insufficiency of the evidence. According to him, the learned trial Judge has not concentrated these aspects at all and has recorded the finding on bare words of three Government officials; two of them were serving with Civil Supply Department and the third one is the Police Officer i.e. the complainant. There is no independent witness examined, either a panch or anybody from the neighbourhood, from where the alleged violative and prohibited material was seized or recovered and, therefore, such a judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot sustain in the eye of law and, therefore, the appellant should be acquitted from the charges levelled against him in respect of the offence in question.