CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chandra Prakash son of Durga Prasad has filed this application in revision against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, dated 29th October, 1968, in Cr. A. No. 293 of 1968, upholding the order of the Magistrate 1st Class, Farrukhabad, dated 10th June, 1968, convicting him for an offence u/S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/ -. The allegation made against the applicant was that on 18th October, 1967, at about 12 noon, one Sri B.D. Pathak, Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who had been duly authorised by the DM u/cl. 8 of the UP Uchit Mulya Tatha Vitaran (Rasad) Adesh of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Adesh), visited the cycle shop of the applicant. He found that the price list that was hung on the shop was not signed by the dealer and that the whole stock position was not clearly mentioned on the stock -board. It was also discovered that the dealer had not maintained the stock register up -to -date. The prosecution claimed, that in the circumstances, the applicant committed offences by contravening the provisions of Cl. 3 of the Adesh on three counts which are punishable u/S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) The applicant pleaded not guilty to the various charges levelled against him. He contended that the price list exhibited by him did contain the signatures of one Ram Ratan, who was a partner in the firm which was running the business. He also claimed that the stock register was complete upto 17th October, 1967, and that the stock position had been rightly shown with chalk marks. He, however, stated that by the time when Sri Pathak visited his shop, the markings, indicating the correct stock position on the stock -board, might have been accidentally rubbed off.

(3.) The learned Magistrate, who tried the case, found that the accused was guilty on all the three counts, and convicted him for offences u/S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 1,500/ -. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the Adesh did not make any provision for maintaining any stock register. Even if the appellant did not maintain a stock register, he could not be held guilty of an offence under the Essential Commodities Act. On the question whether the price list bore the signatures of the dealer or not, the learned Sessions Judge felt doubtful and came to the conclusion that in all probability, the defence that the price list contained the signatures of Ram Ratan who was one of the partners was correct. He accordingly gave him benefit of doubt on this count and held that his conviction for exhibiting a price list which had not been signed by the dealer, could also not be upheld. He however, upheld the conviction of the applicant on the ground that he did not show the stock position on the stock board, and maintained the fine of Rs. 1,500/ - imposed upon him.