NOORMOHMAD HASANBHAI SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant/original accused No. 1 has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded in Summary Case No. 10 of 1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court) of Kheda at Nadiad by invoking the provisions of Sec. 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the Code' for short).

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as follows : 2.1. Both the accused are brothers. Accused No. 2, Siddikbhai Hasanbhai Shaikh, was the owner of the house bearing No. 10/517 situated at Petlad, whose house was raised on 24-9-1987 by Sureshkumar Brahmbhatt, who, at the relevant time, was Supply Inspector of Kheda District, camping at Petlad. On that day at about 3-30 p.m. when said Sureshkumar Brahmbhatt was sitting at Circuit House, an unknown person came there and talked with C. G. Patel, Chief Supply Inspector, and gave information with regard to unauthorised storing of 51 tins of palmolein oil in the house of accused No. 2. 2.2 On receipt of the said information, the Chief Supply Inspector, Supply Inspector and one R. D. Meckwan along with Supply Inspector Sureshkumar Brahmbhatt went to the house of accused No. 2 which was found closed. On looking through the window they found tins in the house. Thereafter, the Chief Supply Inspector ordered to raid the premises. Pursuant to the said order, they called three panchas and in presence of panchas they inquired about the ownership of the house and on inquiry it was learnt that accused No. 2, Siddikbhai Hasanbhai Shaikh, was the owner of the said house. During that time accused No. 1, Noormohmad Hasanbhai Shaikh, came there and he gave information with regard to the ownership of the house. 2.3 Thereafter, accused No. 1 opened the house and in presence of panchas they entered in the house and found 51 tins of palmolein oil. During inquiry, Noormohmad Hasanbhai Shaikh, accused No. 1, stated that the house belonged to his brother Siddikbhai Hasanbhai Shaikh, accused No. 2. He stated that he purchased 51 tins of palmolein oil from an unknown person at the rate of Rs. 280 per tin and the said unknown person stored the same in the house at 3 p.m. Accused No. 1 stated that in all he paid Rs. 14,280. He also stated that he was going to sell the palmolein oil by taking profit of Rs. 3 per kg. All the tins containing palmolein oil were seized in the presence of panchas. During inquiry accused No. 1, Noormohmad, admitted that he had no pass or permit to preserve or store palmolein oil nor any declaration in this regard was made before Mamlatdar. 2.4 Thereafter, they opened one tin in presence of panchas and collected sample of the content. The sample was distributed in three bottles and the bottles were sealed, labelled and signature of panchas, accused No. 1 Noormohmad and two Supply Inspectors were obtained on the same. Out of the three bottles, one bottle was handed over to accused No. 1 Noormohmad and the seized 51 tins were sent to Government godown in a private transport vehicle. Seizure order was served on the accused, panchnama was prepared, signatures of three panchas as well as accused No. 1 were obtained beneath it and all other formalities were completed. Thereafter, statement of accused No. 1 was recorded by Sureshkumar Brahmbhatt who raided the premises and below that signatures of accused No. 1 and panchas were obtained. 2.5 After obtaining requisite sanctions, a complaint was lodged by R. C. Rana, Deputy Mamlatdar (Supply), Petlad before the Special Judge of Kheda at Nadiad. The learned Judge sent the complaint to the concerned police station for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the Code. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against both the accused. 2.6 Both the accused were charge-sheeted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court) of Kheda at Nadiad in Summary Case No. 10 of 1988. Charge was framed against both the accused by the Special Court for alleged offences punishable under S.3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act ('the Act' for short) to which they pleaded not guilty. 2.7 In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution mainly relied upon the oral testimony of seven witnesses, documentary evidence consisting of complaint, confessional statement of the accused and panchnama. On appreciation of the evidence and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Special Judge found the accused No. 1 guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 7 of the Act read with Clauses 4 and 6 of the Gujarat Essential Articles Dealers (Regulation) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation' for short) and Clauses 3(1) (a), 5(1), 18(6) and 22 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 ('the Order' for short hereinafter) and passed the impugned order of conviction dated 13-9-1996 qua accused No. 1 and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default to suffer S. I. for one month. As the guilt against the accused No. 2 was not proved, he was acquitted of the offence with which he was charged.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, appellant/ original accused No. 1 has now come up in this appeal before this Court challenging its legality and validity.