PHOOLCHAND Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief history of the case is that the accused was working as dealer of sugar in village Modi. It appears that other person who is also facing separate trial (Laxminarain) was also working as a dealer of the sugar. On the complaint of certain consumers a checking of the shop was made on 6.6.80. During enquiry it was found that instead of distributing sugarat the rate of 750 gens. per consumer it was distributed in lesser quantity and the stock register was not properly maintained, and as such a challan against the accused was filed.

(2.) ACCUSED abjured guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. After trial learned Magistrate convicted the accused under section 317 of the E.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months. The accused filed appeal before the Sessions Judge. The same was also rejected. However, sentence was reduced to three months from six months as referred to above. Hence, this revision. Held: PW1 Ramgopal Sharma who is Secretary of the panchyat has simply stated that the coupon from the consumers were collected by the Food Inspector. Though, he admitted that sarpanch has written a letter to Tahsildar regarding supply of sugar for the next month to the dealer. PW 2 Bherulal has stated about the complaint having been made by Idekhan. About distribution of sugar in lesser quantity PW3 Bhalaram has stated that he received the sugar in full quantity. He has not been declared hostile. No cross examination has been made. Idekhan (PW4) has supported the case of the prosecutions to the extent that he made complaint about the irregularity in the distribution of sugar. PW 5 Radheshyam Patidar is the food Inspector who had made enquiries. He has tried to support the finding and conclusion arrived at during enquiry. He has made checking of the shop. He has tried to support the case of the prosecution that the register was not properly kept and the coupons and the cards of the consumers contained supply of sugar in more quantity while it was not supplied in the quantity as shown in the coupons and cards. Whatever this Food Inspector states is the result of the enquiry. But, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have proved that a particular customer was entitled to receive the particular quantity of sugar and the same had not been supplied to him. It was further incumbent upon them to have proved that the entry in the register and the card has been falsely shown. This has also not been done.