RAMESH RAMCHARAN AGRAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is preferred by the appellants (original accused Nos.3 and 4) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Special Criminal Case No.150 of 1992 on 29th June, 1993 whereby the present appellants have been convicted for contravening of Clause IV and XV of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licencing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981 and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) To appreciate the submissions made by Mr.K.J.Panchal, learned Counsel for the appellants firstly the Court would like to state the basic facts of the prosecution that were placed before the learned trial Judge.

(3.) It is accepted principles of law that the case of prosecution should stand on its own leg and substratum of the story should remain intact. The charge against the accused persons was that they were transporting stock of kerosene illegally that was being sold in black-market and the said stock was to be delivered at a particular place. So, the name of recipients was also disclosed during the course of investigation. This fact may have come to the notice of the Investigating Officer on the strength of the clue given by the accused but on plain reading of the judgment vis-a-vis the evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge during the trial, it is submitted by Mr.Panchal that while linking the accused with the crime the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error on reading some inadmissible evidence and has also not correctly applied the principles of appreciation of evidence. While developing this argument, Mr.Panchal has drawn attention of the Court that the learned trial Judge has placed reliance on confessional statement recorded by the Officer of the Civil Supply Department of Government of Gujarat but has ignored one fact that at the time when the statement was recorded the accused was in police custody and the same was recorded even before they were produced first time before the learned Magistrate. It is the case of prosecution that loading rickshaw carrying five barrels of kerosene was intercepted by Police and it is also alleged that both the accused persons were taken by Police alongwith stock of the kerosene to the concerned Police Station and they were interrogated and thereafter the Officers of the Civil Supply Department was informed by the Police itself and when accused were in custody of Police, statement of any of the accused recorded by the Officer of Civil Supply Department, the same would consider in evidence and could have been exhibited, that is, statement of accused No.3 (Exh.78). Statement of accused No.4 has not been received in evidence and the same has not been exhibited. According to Mr.Panchal, an unexhibited document, viz., statement of accused No.4 ought not to have been considered or read over by the learned trial Judge, even though the same has been considered while linking the accused with the crime.