RAM DHANI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 20-7-1984 passed by Sri Rajendra Nath, Special Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1984 (Ram Dhani v. State) where the revisionist has been convicted under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 (rupees two thousand) and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 3 months R.I.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a raid was made on 22-12-1981 by Sri Rajiv Banerji, the Marketing Inspector at the house of the revisionist in the presence of public witnesses and food grains were found stored on the Veranda of the revisionist for sale. A complaint was filed against the revisionist. The revisionist was convicted by the learned lower Court and on appeal the conviction was upheld by the learned Special Judge, Gorakhpur, against which order the present revision has been preferred.

(3.) The revisionist has challenged both the judgments passed by learned lower Court as well as learned Appellate Court on the ground that the food grains were lying in front of house of the revisionist and the same belonged to one Sri Satya Narayan. The theory of the revisionist was found to be false and fictitious by the learned Magistrate and he gave a detailed finding to this effect. In this revision it was alleged that the food grains belonged to Satya Narayan. In this regard, it was held by the learned Magistrate that Satya Narayan and Ram Samuj were of the same family. A Khatauni has been filed to that effect also. The learned Magistrate gave a categorical finding that at the time of preparation of the recovery memo neither Ram Samuj nor the accused ever stated that the food grains belonged to Satya Narayan or himself. If the weighing machine and other articles to weigh the food grain were found at the time of recovery, the presumption shall be of a dealer. It is true that there is no evidence that if the accused/revisionist was not a food dealer, he was a commission agent. What appears is that the accused was dealing in food grains without licence. In appeal this finding was also fortified. This revisional Court will not go in the findings of fact. No illegality or irregularity appears in the judgments passed by the learned Courts below.