DHANRAJ BHIKANDAS AMBAR Vs. STATEOF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 9 of 1987 is filed by the accused seeking to impugn an order of conviction and sentence passed against him on the 26th of November, 1986 by the Special Judge, Solapur in Criminal case No. 11 of 1986. By the said order, the accused is convicted of an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities act and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Criminal Revision Application No. 9 of 1987 arises out of a suo motu notice of enhancement of sentence which is issued by this Court at the stage of admission of the appeal. Both the above proceedings are being disposed of by the present judgment.

(2.) THE incident in question has taken place on the night of the 9th and 10th of November, 1985. The accused runs a ration shop at village Savadi. Amongst other articles, he sells levy sugar to ration card holders. It is the case of the prosecution that villagers were annoyed with the accused since he, instead of selling them the levy sugar, was selling the same to private shop owners in black market. The villagers, especially young students, kept a watch on the activities of the accused. At the relevant time, they found two persons which includes PW 5 Sahebrao Ekad, carrying bags on their heads. They were followed by PW 4 Murlidhar Mahamuni, who conducts a grocery shop in the said village. According to the prosecution, the levy sugar which was originally stored in a hundred kilo bag was transferred by the accused in two bags of 50 kgs. each and the same was sold by the accused to Murlidhar mahamuni and was being carried to the shop of Murlidhar Mahamuni. PW 6 dilip Desmukh, who was one of the students, keeping a vigil, alerted the rest of the students who were keeping a watch by blowing a whistle. The students accosted Sahebrao, his co-carrier and Mahamuni and retained the sugar bags. A panchanama (Exhibit 10) was prepared on the spot. Since it was raining, the sugar bags kept at the Gram Panchayat office in charge of village Kotwal. PW 2 Dadasaheb Gayakwad, the Sarpanch of the village, came on the scene at the time of the panchanama. The Sarpanch lodged his report (Exhibit 9) at the police station. PW 7 Bhausaheb Pardhi, wlio was incharge of the Karmala police Station, received the report (Exhibit 9) along with the panchanama (Exhibit 10 ). . He seized the sugar under a fresh panchanama (Exhibit 7), which was prepared in the presence of Punch-Witness PW 1 Sukhadeo Shelke. After completing investigation, A S 1. Pardhi lodged his complaint (Exhibit 16), Ou these facts, the accused was prosecuted for having sold levy sugar to a local merchant in black market.

(3.) ACCUSED pleaded not guilty. His defence was one of denial. According to him he has been maintaining proper registers and accounts in respect of sale of rationed articles. The stock in his fair price shop has always been found to be in order. The accused has further gone on to state that the Sarpanch dadasaheb Gayakwad is on irimical terms with him since he refused to oblige him with free grocery. According to the accused the prosecution witnesses have deposed against him at the instance of the Sarpanch.