VIRNAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were charged with an offence under Essential Commodities Act. It is surprising that in the trial held by the Sessions Judge, Indore in Special Case No. 17/85 the charge itself is not specific. It has been alleged in the charge that 25 bales of cotton sold on 19.1.83, were not entered into the stock register by the accused persons and that was a breach of condition No.1 and 2 (a) (b) (c) of the licence, which was a violation of Essential Commodities Act. Neither it was alleged that the accused persons are partners of the firm nor specific provision of the Essential Commodities Act which was alleged to have been violated was shown. Both the accused persons were shown as owners of Malwa Cotton Agency. A perusal of the judgment shows that even in the judgment the provision under which the acts alleged were offences have not been mentioned. Even the conviction is not under the particular provision. It is only stated that the accused persons are found to be guilty of the offence charged. The licence of which condition No.1 and 2 (a) (b) (c) were alleged to have been violated has also not been produced. In these circumstances it is not known as to for what offence and under what provision of law the appellants were charged and for what offence they were convicted. No violation of any licence condition has been proved because the licence itself is not put on record nor there is any clue in the record of what these conditions were. In these circumstances the conviction and the sentence cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentences are set -aside. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged.