MUNAFBHAI MOHMAD ARIF VOHRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is preferred by the appellant -accused against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana in Essential Commodity Case No.4 of 1992, on 31st December, 1994 whereby the appellant -accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs.3000/ -, in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The learned Judge after conclusion of the trial found that appellant -accused is found guilty of charge of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, he has violated the conditions of Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981.

(2.) MR .Mehul Sharad Shah, learned Advocate for the appellant, has taken me through the various grounds of challenge, entire judgment and order of conviction and sentence, as well as, relevant part of the oral as well as documentary evidence led during the course of trial. To appreciate the submissions made before the Court, it would be proper to state the facts of the present case in brief.

(3.) IT is the say of the prosecution that Officer of the Civil Supply Department had inspected the premises of the appellant -accused on 13th December, 1990 and found certain irregularities and illegalities. He, therefore, prepared a detailed report and the same was submitted to the Collector, Mehsana and Collector, Mehsana ultimately decided to institute a criminal proceedings in Criminal Court for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is also alleged that during inspection 12 irregularities were found and therefore, the appellant -accused was served with notice to explain about the irregularities mentioned in the notice. The notice was responded by the accused with written explanation on 28th October, 1991. It is not necessary to enumerate all the 12 irregularities mentioned in the notice to show -cause because the same is referred to by the learned Judge in his judgment and order under challenge and they are also mentioned in detail in deposition of Prosecution Witness No.1, Vaghela Laxmansinh Vajesinh, who has been examined at Exh.16. The said irregularities were also referred to in the relevant documents tendered by this witness which are at Exhs.18 and 19, so also, the order of the Collector at Exh.17, whereby he had recorded and ordered to institute criminal proceedings against the appellant -accused.