RAMSAHAY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 03/01/1996 passed by Special Judge, Chhatarpur in Special Case No. 9/94 (EC Act), convicting the appellant under section 3(2)(c) read with Section 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short Act of 1955) for black marketing of kerosene oil and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/-.

(2.) FACTS of the case, in short, are that 16/06/1994 at about 1.30 p.m, (PW-4) made a complaint to Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Food Inspector (PW-2) that appellant has sold 5.500 litres of Kerosene to him in Rs.30/-. Appellant was a private dealer for free sale distribution of kerosene. In presence of Govind (PW-1) Panchnama Ex.P-1 was prepared by Food Inspector (PW-2). Signature of appellant was also obtained on Ex.P-1. Statements of Govind (PW-1) and Malla (PW-4) were recorded to that effect by PW-2. In fact, prescribed rate of kerosene was Rs.2.75 paisa per litre and appellant has charged excess amount from Malla (PW-4), thereby he was found to be guilty of contravention of provision of Clause 4,5 and 6(3) of Kerosene (Market Price Determination) Order 1970. Memorandum Ex.P-5 was also prepared by Food Inspector (PW-2) addressed to Collector Chhatarpur. On receiving report dated 29/07/1994 at Police Station- Naogoan, a case at Crime No. 174/1994 under section 3/7 of Act of 1955 was registered against the appellant.

(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the ground that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Evidence of Malla (PW-4) is suffering from material contradictions and omissions. Conviction has been based on insufficient discrepant evidence. Conviction is bad in law. Sentence is harsh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the finding of conviction and sentence both.