MUSTUFA SULEMAN KUSKIWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Appeal is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, on 23rd March, 1995, in Summary (Criminal Case) No. 11 of 1987 whereby the present appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and was sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each offence. The learned Judge has ordered that all the sentenced should run concurrently. The date of commission of offence is 9th December, 1986.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that while inspecting the shop of the appellant-accused, the Inspecting Officer found six irregularities and illegalities. However, on plain reading of those irregularities mentioned in the complaint, it appears that out of six irregularities, four irregularities were grave in nature in comparison with other irregularities mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2. As per say of the prosecution, it was the main allegation that while carrying out the inspection, the Officer found that two tins of edible groundnut oil were excess than the actual stock mentioned in the register maintained and in the same way during physical verification as to the sell and purchase of edible oil, about 24 Kg. oil was found excess than the actual reflected in the accounts by the Inspecting Officer. It was also observed by the Inspecting Officer that four tins of mustard oil of 15 Kg. were not there and found less than the stock mentioned. Most of the grave allegations in the complaint is that the stock of rice was found less of 6532 Kg. The accused was holding authority to sell rice as a whole seller and also as a retailer. In the register maintained as whole seller dealer, the opening stock was mentioned as 2132 Kg. , and in the register maintained as retailer, it was 2829 Kg. But, during the inspection carried out on 9th December, 1987, the difference between purchase and sale was shown that the actual stock of rice with the trader should be of 26141 Kg. , cumulatively but on physical verification it was found 19109 Kgs. , and thus, it was less by 6532 Kgs. According to prosecution these irregularities were in clear violation of Condition No. 7, 4 (1), 8 of the Licence, so also under Sections 26, 23 and 18 (7) (4) of the Gujarat Essential Article (Licence, Control and Stock Declaration), Order, 1981.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel, Mr. Joshi, appearing for the appellant and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. Pandit, for respondent-State. They have taken me through the records and proceeding available before the Court.