LAWS(BOM)-1996-9-136

VISHAL BABURAO MESTRY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On September 06, 1996
Vishal Baburao Mestry Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant was tried in the Court of Special Judge, E.C.Act, Thane in Special Case (E.C.Act) No.27/88 for the offence punishable u/s 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. By his judgment and order of con-viction and sentence, the Ld.Special Judge convicted the Appellant for the offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, and senten-ced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200.00 or in default to undergo further R.I. 3 weeks. The Appellants was also convicted for the offence u/s 8 of the Essential Commodities Act. However no separate sentence was imposed for the said offence. The present appeal is filed against the said judgment and order.

(2.) AT the trial, it was the case of the prosecution that, on 6.2.88 P.W.1 Asaram Abaji Golhar, Police Head Constable, was on patrolling duty along-with P.I.Karkare, P.S.I., Police Naik Shinde and Police Constable Pagar and Shevale in the local limits of Nizampura Police Station at Bhiwandi. The Patrolling party was in a jeep. At about 9.00 p.m. the police jeep was going by Khadipar road. At that time, one 3-Wheeler tempo was coming from opposite direction. The patrolling party intercepted the tempo. It was searched in the presence of two panchas. In was searched in the presence of two panchas. In that search 3 cans containing about 90 litres of Kerosene and one empty barrel were found. The 3-Wheeler tempo was being driven by the appellant-accused at the relevant time.

(3.) AT the trial, the prosecution examined in all three witnesses viz. P.W.1 Asaram Golhar, who lodged his complaint against the accused, P.W.2 Motilal Yadav, who is the panch-witness and P.W.3 Tukaram Patil, P.S.I. Rabale Police Station. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. Upon scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Ld.Special Judge, E.C.Act, convicted the accused as afore-said. It is the said order of conviction and sent-ence which is challenged in the present appeal.