GANGA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.3.1984 passed by the Special Judge, Gonda in Special Case No. 12 of 1983 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- in default whereof to undergo fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a brief compass. THE appellant had a licence to sell kerosene oil tin village Juwa and the shop where he was authorised to sell the kerosene oil in the said village, was specified with boundaries, in the said licence. Sri Aram Singh, Supply Inspector, Balrampur made a surprise inspection of this shop on 19.2.1983 at about 11 a.m. but he did not find any such shop at the specified place in the licence. He was informed by the residents of the said village that the appellant was selling kerosene oil in the cane-godown which was at a distance of a kilometre from village Juwa. Accordingly the Supply Inspector went there and found Ganga Ram at the cane godown, Ganga Ram is the son of appellant: and he also told the Supply Inspector that the kerosene oil was being sold by his lather at the cane godown. THE Supply Inspector checked the stock register and found the kerosene oil in accordance with the stock register. Some villagers also complained to the Supply Inspector that the appellant was selling kerosene oil at Rs. 2.20 per litre. A written report was lodged by Supply Inspector at P. S. Balrampur Kotwali the very same day. Investigation followed and after getting sanction for the prosecution of the appellant, Investigaing Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 27.8.1983.

(3.) THE next question remains about the sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the appellant is not a previous convict and that he had to change the place for selling the kerosene oil, in consequence of the appellant having been evicted from the shop where he was authorised to sell the kerosene oil. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that he had good quantity of kerosene oil at his disposal which he could not allow to be gone astray. THE appellant, according to the learned counsel, had also moved the authorities concerned for the change of place in the licence and in the meantime had started selling kerosene oil to the consumers in all good faith and for the benefit of the public at large. THE learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, pleaded for reduction in sentence.