STATE OF U P Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two Government Appeals against the acquittal of Roshan Lal and Kishori Lal by Sri S. K. Agnihotri, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, dated 9-6-1975, in two cases brought against them under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under Rule 114 (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case was that on 31-7-1974 at about 8 in the evening Sri R. K. Misra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barah Mandal, as Enforcement Officer, raided the shop of the accused-respondents situate in Karkhana Bazar in the city of Almora. The shop of Kishori Lal was run under the name and style of M/s. Badri Prasad & Sons and the shop of Roshan Lal was run under the name and style of M/s. Gokul Chand Chandra Prakash and the accused-respondents were owners of these two shops. These raids were made in the presence of Khajan Singh Kain, Tehslldar Almora, Pratap Singh Kaira, Reader of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, G. D. Sati, Sub-Inspector Police and Shabbir Ahmad Khan, Chairman, Nagarpalika, Almora. The accused-respondents remained present throughout these raids. On a checking of the shops some essential commodities stored in the shops were not found as entered in the stock register. Certain other commodities were less in quantity than what was shown in the stock register and certain other essential commodities were found in excess of the stock. Certain other commodities were found entered in the stock register, but were not found in the shop. The accused-respondents had not entered the price of these essential commodities on the cover or cartons of these commodities as fixed by the State or Central Government. At the shop of Kishori Lal in cash memo book from serial No. 11801 to serial No. 11808 the names of the purchasers and their addresses were not given in the cash memo issued. The stock list was also not properly made. It was written on a paper on a permanent basis and no change in it was possible except by cutting or over-writing. The items in respect of which these irregularities were found were taken in possession by the Enforcement Officer and recovery memos were prepared by Pratap Singh Kaira at the dictation of the Enforcement Officer and were signed by all the witnesses present. A report of the occurrence was lodged by said Pratap Singh Kaira at the dictation of the Enforcement Officer and was lodged at the police-station. On this report a case was registered against the accused-respondents, after investigations they were prosecuted and have been acquitted as aforesaid.

(3.) IN respect of breach of Clause 5 there is nothing to indicate that the price of these commodities, which were checked up and seized by the Enforcement Officer had been fixed by the Government and this price had to be shown on the cover or carton of the scheduled commodities. IN fact evidence was given to show that on the wrapper of different kinds of soaps and on the blade the price at which they were to be sold was shown and there was no evidence to show on which particular commodities the price had not been shown or the price of those commodities was controlled.