DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.3.84 of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 208/81, whereby the conviction of the accused -applicant under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain in Cr.C. No. 3139/80 has been confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court with a fine of Rs. two thousand has also been maintained. A further order about the forfeiture of the papers and the answer books as shown in para 14 of the judgment of the C.J.M. has also been upheld.

(2.) THE brief history of the case is that the accused applicant alongwith Smt. Surajmukhi were running a shop and selling papers and exercise books and they were required to exhibit the price on a board in front of the shop at the conspicuous place and they were also required to maintain stock register. On the date of incident i.e. 3.7.80 a checking was made. The price list was not maintained and as such a challan against the accused applicant and Smt. Surajmukhibai was filed. The accused abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. Smt. Surajmukhibai, who is reported dead, pleaded that applicant Dinesh is looking after the shop and she has been wrongly shown as a partner in the shop. Learned trial Judge convicted the accused applicant as above and directed forfeiture of the stock. The appeal against the said order has proved abortive. Hence, this revision. Smt. Surajmukhibai is reported to be dead as such no appeal was filed by her to that extent the finding has become final.

(3.) THE trial Court as well as the appellate Court has found that the price list was not exhibited properly, the conviction has been done only for that court. It is an established principle of law that the revisional Court normally should not disturb the finding of fact unless the conviction is based on inadmissible evidence or is illegal otherwise. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence. There is sufficient material for the finding arrived at by the two Courts below. So far as the stock register is concerned that was found to be correct as per the observation in para 13 of the judgment of trial Magistrate. Under these circumstances if the stock was not in excess of what was shown in the stock register, it was not proper for the Court to have forfeited whole of the stock merely for some irregularity in the exhibition of the price list. In view of the discussions above, this revision succeeds partly. The conviction of the accused -applicant and sentence imposed against him is maintained. However, the order of forfeiture of the stock is set -aside.