MOHANBHAI DAYALBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Summary Case No.4 of 1990, on 31st January, 1992, whereby the present appellant -accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ -, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) TO appreciate the rival side submissions, it would be necessary to state the prosecution case in nutshell. It is the case of prosecution that The complainant was the Deputy Mamlatdar and was in -charge of Civil Supplies Section Department of the Office of the Mamlatdar, Dhandhuka on 8/7/1989. The complainant had visited the village Rojid, Tal.Dhandhuka on 27/8/1989 in response to the complaint received from the resident of the said village. It is alleged that they are not getting regular supply of kerosene. One of the main complainant, Pravinchandra Vrajlal Soni who is cited as a witness in the complaint was called and he informed the Mamlatdar that Kanji Bhagvanji, who is authorized to distribute and sell the kerosene, is not regularly supplying kerosene to the people on demand and is illegally selling the kerosene directly to the persons. The appellant -accused, Mohanbhai Dayalbhai Dungarani, was resident of said village and was running a factory of diamond policing in the house owned by Manubhai Nathabhai Mistry. It is the case of the prosecution that from the falia of said premises, a barrel containing 200 liters of kerosene was found from the possession of the appellant -accused and thereby the accused -appellant was found guilty for offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, so also, for violating the provision of Kerosene (Restriction on Use) Order, 1966. It is the say of the prosecution that the accused was not holding any such legal pass or permit for possessing the kerosene beyond 18.5 liters. The Control Order was issued as per the scheme of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Judge came to a conclusion that the prosecution has established the charges levelled against the appellant -accused and therefore, convicted the accused -appellant for the said offence by the impugned judgment dated 31st January, 1992 passed in in Summary Case No.4 of 1990. It is this judgment and order that has given rise to this appeal.