KALYANMAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convict/appellants Kalyanmal S/o Babulal and Mahesh Chandra Sb Punamchand (here-in-after called, the accused) challenge their conviction dated 13.6.1986 under Ss. 3/7 of the EC Act, 1955 (here-in-after called,T the Act) and sentence of three months RI each and fine of Rs.1500/- each in default of payment of fine further RI for 15 days each awarded in summary trial by the Sessions Judge, Indore acting as Special Judge under Section 18A and S.12-AA (f) of the Act.

(2.) The prosecution story is that M/s. Manoj Trading Company is a Partnership Firm of which accused/appellant Kalyanmal S/c Babulal is a partner. The firm holds a Licence No.28/78 under the M.P. Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963. On 5.9.1982, Sunday when the shop was closed, Food Inspector K.L. Birle (P.W1) on orders of the Collector of the district, accompanied by Tehsildar Sanwer Shri Purohit and T.I. Chouhan (both not examined by the prosecution) checked the shop of the firm. Being Sunday as the shop was closed, Kalyanmal the accused was called and the shop got opened and checked. Stock register and price-list showed 7 bags of sugar and also that there was receipt of 120 bags of sugar of which 60 bags were claimed to have been purchased from outside. No bill or receipt in respect of these 120 bags of sugar was produced at the time of checking. 7 bags of sugar were have been claimed to have purchased locally but in that respect also no bill or receipt was produced. During checking on 5.9.1982 the opening stock in the stock register on 6.9.1982 in relevant column was shown to be 7 quintals. The Food Inspector was of the view that there was contravention of condition No.3 of the licence issued to the Firm under M.P. Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963. He, therefore, effected seizure of the stock register, stock exhibition list prepared Panchanama and submitted the report to Collector, Indore for further action. Challan was thereafter put up against the accused persons in the Court of ACJM Indore who later on submitted the case to the Special Court (Sessions Judge, Indore). On 14.9.1983, the Special Judge explained the particulars of the offence to the accused persons alleging that in the checking on 5.9.1982 opening stock on 6.9.1982 was shown and bills regarding purchase of Sugar were not produced and these constituted breach of condition No. 3 of the Licence issued under thee M.P. Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 and this was punishable under S.3/7 of the EC Act, 1955. The two accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined Food Inspector, K.L. Birle (P.W.1), Ishwar Das attesting witness to Panchanama Ex.P/1 and Seizure memo, Exh.P/2 and Smt. Madhu Kapoor, SDM who forwarded Food Inspectors report EX.P/6and EX.P9 to the Station Officer, Central Kotwali, Indore for further action. Accused Kalyanmal in his examination stated that the day of checking was Sunday, for 60 bags of sugar bilty was there. The opening stock for 6.9.1982 was shown as 5.9.1982 was a Sunday. On Sunday 120 bags of sugar were received and these were properly explained and entered in the register. The bill or receipt for 60 bags could not be produced as the same had till then not been received. Similar plea was also raised by Maheshchandra the other accused. They did not examine any witness in defence. The Special Judge found them guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.

(3.) At the hearing of the appeal Shri H.S. Oberci learned counsel representing the accused/appellants submitted that accused Kalyanmal had in his statement made at the time of checking itself recorded by the Food Inspector explained that 60 bags of sugar had come from Sahakari Sakkar Karkhana Distt. Ahmadnagar and dispatched from that place on 3.9.1982. These 60 bags were received in his absence at the shop. The other 60 bags were purchased from Vasudeo Moclchand Ware House Indore and the receipt and bill in respect of the same would be produced. This statement made immediately had its own importance. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants challenged the conviction urging that the prosecution evidence did not bring home the charge against the accused persons. There was nothing on record to show that it was obligatory for the accused persons to produce railway receipt or receipt in respect of purchase of sugar or that by not doing so the accused persons had committed breach of conditions of the licence.