KRISHNAPPA SEKHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No.6 in S.T.C.No.3 of 1994 on the file of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor had preferred Criminal Appeal No.1552 of 1998. Like wise Accused No.3 in the afore said S.T.C.No.3 of 1994 had preferred Criminal Appeal No.1566 of 1998. The learned District Judge on appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and Exs.P-1 to P-20 came to the conclusion that Accused Nos.3 and 6 are found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and were convicted and whereas, Accused Nos.7 and 8 were found not guilty and were acquitted. In view of the fact that Accused No.3 violated the clause 6(1)(a) order 6(1)(c) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one month and 15 days and Accused No.6 was found guilty for violation of Order 6(1)(c) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993, and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) Ms. Sofia Begum representing Noushad Ali, the counsel representing the appellants made the following submissions. The learned counsel would submit that the accused were initially charged with 6(1)(3) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1988, but, they were convicted under Order 1993, which cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also further pointed out that while conducting search and seizure, the procedure as contemplated by Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code) had not been followed. The learned counsel also would submit that the presence of the respectable inhabitants of the locality had not been secured and apart from which, the list of the seized articles also had not been prepared. The learned Counsel also would submit that even otherwise, Accused No.3 is the brother of Accused No.2 and Accused No.2 is the prime accused whose whereabouts are not known and Accused No.6 is the only a delivery boy and PW.5 had not supported the version of the prosecution and also in view of the inconsistency in the evidence of other witnesses, the appellants/accused Nos.3 and 6 are entitled for an acquittal.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in view of clause 14 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993, under the corresponding provision, the conviction was recorded and sentence had been imposed and the same is in accordance with law. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would submit that even if there is some irregularity in not complying with the provisions of Section 100 of the Code, it would be a curable irregularity and not an illegality and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed are to be confirmed.