KANAIYALAL CHIMANLAL MODY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed on 30-7-1965 by Mr. C. H. Vasayda City Magistrate, 7th Court Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 1389 of 1964 whereby the appellant-accused came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 or, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Rule 4 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'act' and the 'order' respectively ).

(2.) ON receipt of some information from the Controller of the Iron, Steel and Cement Commodities for the Ahmedabad Region, Mr. Ghatalia, the Assistant Controller accompanied by Mr. Rawal, the Supervisor, working in that office, and two police constables went to Khamasa Gate, in Ahmedabad at about 3 p. m. on 19-6-1964. They stopped their jeep car and after taking the panchas with them, they went to the shop of the accused. The accused and his father Chimanlal were present there. On questioning the accused, Mr. Raval was told that it was his shop and that the corrugated sheets which were lying in the shop belonged to him. They were then taken to the godown from where 221 corrugated sheets were found. They were all new sheets and had no holes. On being asked if he had any pass or permit for possessing the same, the accused said that he had none. He had, however, shown two bills. A panchnama was then drawn up in respect of all the corrugated sheets found from that place. Thereafter Mr. Ghatalia recorded the statement of the accused, and after it was read over to him, he put his signature thereon. A freezing order was then passed and given to the accused. The complaint was then lodged with the police. After making the necessary investigation, the charge-sheet against the accused was sent up to the Court of the City Magistrate, for having acquired the corrugated sheets without any pass or permit and thereby committed a breach of Rule 4 of the Order and that way liable under Section 7 of the Act.

(3.) THE accused denied to have committed any offence whatever. He filed his written statement Ex. 2-A wherein he raised several contentions. According to him, the attachment of goods from his shop was illegal, and apart from not admitting the contents of his statement, since it was recorded by the police under threats and coercion, it was inadmissible in evidence in view of as. 24, 25 and 29 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further stated that he was in no way connected with B. Girischandra and Co. , and if at all any such company was in existence, his father who died on 27-11-1964, was managing the same. The shop premises was taken on rent by his father from the authorities of Mahipatram Rupram Ashram and he had nothing to do with the same. Lastly he has stated that the evidence given by the witnesses was false and that, therefore, he should be acquitted.