CH SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by A1, A2 and A3 in STC No. 14 of 1993 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Essential Commodities Act, Hyderabad against their conviction for the offence under Clause 25 of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980 punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the dealer of petroleum products, A2, is the Manager of A3 firm and A3 is the firm represented by A1. PW2 - the Vigilance Inspector along with panchayatdars - PW1 and another, visited the business premises of A3 firm on 27-9-1991 at 11.00 a.m. and conducted the density test, verified the stocks in the presence of panch and he obtained samples of High Spirit Diesel and Motor Spirit (petrol) in the presence of panchdars under Ex.P1 and sent them to the analyst for proof of standard with a letter of advice on 28-9-1991 and he also registered the Ex.Pl as Crime No.40/VC.MBNR/91 and issued F.I.R. under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 is the letter of advice dated 28-9-1991 and Ex.P4 is the certificate of authority. PW4 received the said sample bottles on 4-10-1991 with seals intact, with letters of advice. He conducted the test in the laboratory by following the method of test IS-1148; He conducted only one test for density; He noted the density of HSD as 0.8397; and of Motor spirit as 0.7210; Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are the reports of PW4 with regard to the densities of HSD and MS respectively found by him. After receipt of the Analyst Reports PW3 filed the charge-sheet against the accused alleging that the density of HSD is more than permissible limits and thus they indulged in selling adultered M.S. and violated Clause 25 of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980 and Clause 5 of M.S. & H.S.D. (Prevention of Malpractices in Supplying and Distribution) Order 1990, read with Sections 7 and 8 of E.C. Act. When questioned the accused denied the chance and claimed to be tried. To prove its case the prosecution examined PWsl to 4 and marked Ex.Pl to P8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, they stated that it is a false case. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Special Judge held the accused guilty of the offence under Clause 25 of A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980 punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act as the density of M.S. is beyond the permissible limits by 0.38 and convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.