ANIL KUAMR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 10.04.1990 passed by Sri Mahesh Chandra, the then Special Judge (E.C. Act), Moradabad in E. C. Act Case No. 37 of 1986 whereby the appellant had been convicted for the offence punishable under section 3/7 EC Act and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Facts germane to the appeal in brief are that in the night of 4/5.2.1986 at about 2:00 AM Senior Marketing Inspector V. S. Bhandari along with Mahesh Chandra Dixit, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, his other colleagues, Sanitary Inspectors, police sub-inspectors and Constables under the directions and in presence of SDM, Bilari Sri N.K. Singh raided the open shop/godown of Anil Kumar Gupta situated in Mohalla Kaithal Gate, Chandausi who was present at the shop. During inspection 34-bags of common paddy weighing 23.80 quintals, 17-bags of common rice (Kinki) weighing 17 quintals, 8-bags of common rice Arwa about 8 quintals and 3-bags of fine rice Arwa weighing 3 quintals were recovered from his shop. The accused could not produce any licence for dealing in food grains. It was alleged that the accused has contravened clause-3 of the U.P. Food Grains Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order 1976 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7 read with section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The recovery memo was prepared at the spot, food grains were given in the Supurdagi of Vipin Kumar son of Badri Prasad Gupta and the accused along with FIR, recovery memo etc. was lodged with the police of P. S. Chandausi at 5:00 AM on 05.02.1986. On the basis of the written report of Sri Bhandari, a case under section 3/7 of E. C. Act at Crime No. 79 of 1986 against the accused-appellant was registered, investigation whereof was entrusted to SI Kirpal Singh. The Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses, visited the place of incident, prepared site plan, obtained sanction for prosecution of the accused and the investigation culminated into the charge sheet against the accused appellant.

(3.) The accused denied the prosecution story stating that no rice was recovered from his possession as he is simply running a flour mill and has no concern with the rice which belonged to the tenants.