KANHAIYA LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal it is not disputed that on 20th October, 1982 appellant Kanhaiya Lal was a petty licensed diesel dealer of village Rudhauli, district Basti. He did not have regular underground tank for storing diesel oil. It is further not disputed that he used to store diesel oil in drums. He had no pump for measuring oil. He used to sell diesel oil by measurement from litre measure.

(2.) Prosecution story is that on 20th October, 1982 the then District Supply Officer, Basti, Ramesh Chandra Srivastava PW 3, accompanied by Supply Inspector Munni Lal, PW 4, and public witnesses Sudama Tewari, PW 1, and Ram Milan, PW 2, carried out physical checking of his stock of diesel oil and as compared with the stock register maintained by the appellant, found shortage of 950 litres.

(3.) On the basis of written report, Exhibit ka 3, submitted by the Supply Officer chik report was prepared and case was registered against the appellant the same day at 12.05 in the same noon. District Magistrate accorded sanction, Exhibit ka 7 for prosecution of the appellant for contravention of provisions of sub-clauses (3) and (5) of clause 16 of the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 and conditions 4(i)(c) and 4(ii) of the Licence. Charge-sheet was submitted to Special Judge appointed under the Essential Commodities Act to try the appellant summarily. Public witnesses Sudama Tewari, PW 1, and Ram Milan, PW 2, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. District Supply Officer, PW 3, and his Inspector Munni Lal, PW 2, deposed the prosecution story and proved shortage in stock. They further proved memo Exhibit ka 1. Both of them were cross-examined and it emerged that the diesel oil was stored in drums and was measured by litre measure. It was suggested to them that five drums full of the diesel oil remained and their contents were not measured. They denied this contention. Head constable Tila Mohd., PW 5, proved the chik report and entries in the General Diary. Sub Inspector B.N. Singh, PW 6, was examined as Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed the proceedings held by him and the papers prepared by him during investigation. He further proved sanction, Exhibit ka 7. In his cross-examination also it was attempted that five drums full of diesel oil were not checked and their contents were not measured. But the attempt proved futile.