ASARAM BHAVANDIN YADAVD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this case was the original accused No. 4 in Criminal Case No. 23 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule. The appellant along with the other accused was charged with having committed offences punishable under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The accused were also charged with certain other offences which are not very material for the purposes of the decision of this appeal.

(2.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of all the offences with which they stood charged but as far as original accused No. 4 i e. the present appellant is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted him for having committed an offence punishable under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The accused was sentenced to one days simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, R. I. for three months. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) MR. Navin Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a point of procedure that is fundamental to all criminal trials. Mr. Shah, in the first instance, has drawn my attention to the charge framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the 2nd of February, 1988. Since this issue is of some importance, the charge that was framed is reproduced below: