RASHID AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. N. Ojha, J. Instant revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30-4-1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1986, Rashid Ahmad v. State, and confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 4-3-1986 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, district Bijnor, in Criminal Case 38 of 1986, State v. Rashid Ahmad and Khurshid Ahmad, by which Rashid Ahmad, revisionist, was held guilty under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Rules 3 and 9 (2) of U. P. Cement Control Order, 1972 and was sentenced to undergo RI of 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000 was imposed and in case of default in payment of fine Rashid Ahmad had further to undergo two months RI. The co-accused Khurshid Ahmad son of Rashid Ahmad was acquitted.

(2.) HEARD Sri Ikram Ahmad learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anoop Ghosh, learned AGA and have gone through the record.

(3.) A perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below show that the Courts below held that when raid at the premises of the revisionist was made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khurshid Ahmad son of Rashid Ahmad was present but he could not produce any proper to show that it was the cement in respect of which allotment order was passed and permit was issued, but DW 1 Subhash Chand Sharma, who was clerk in Tube-well department stated that work of Tube-well department for construction of Nali was going on, therefore, 20 bags and 25 bags cement were issued to him. There was no accommodation of Tube-well department to store the cement, therefore, the contractors used to carry the cement keep and look after it in their own premises. It was also stated that there was no Godown of Tube-well department. The revisionist also stated under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that the cement, which was recovered from his premises was issued by the Tube-well department for construction purposes. If the revisionist would have been present at his residence at the time when raid was made and 28 bags of cement was recovered, it could be said that he could produce the papers. It is not expected from a boy of 17 years that he has knowledge about every transaction and documentary evidence, which is being dealt by his father, who is a contractor. In such circumstances if Khurshid Ahmad could not produce the papers of permit and allotment order before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the time of raid, on this ground it cannot be said that the plea of issuing of permit and allotment order was after thought.