DINDAYAL TILU PATLE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the appeal of the accused Dindayal who has been convicted by the Special Court under section 3/7 (1) (a) (ii) of the essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of clause 3 (1) of the m. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 and has been sentenced to three months' R. I. and also to pay the fine of Rs. 500 and in default of fine, to a further term of one month's R. I.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, initiated on police charge-sheet consequent to the written report submitted by the Food Inspector P. W. 6 s. N. Pandey, was that on 13-11-1983 it was a weekly market-day in village madai. The said Food Inspector, on surprise check in the market, had noticed the appellant-accused in front of his house, engaged in the business of purchase of dhan-the whole quantity being stacked in bags, partly in the front courtyard of the house, and partly in the verandah (chhapri) of the house. The appellant-accused had no licence for such business as enjoined by the provisions of the M. P. Foodgrains Licensing Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'licensing Order' ). Hence, 20 full bags and one small bag of dhan, which, on weighment, were found to be 14 quintals and 53 Kgs. in total (Ex. P-4), were seized together with one rough account book of certain transactions (Ex. P-3), which the appellant-accused had with him at the relevant time, vide seizure memo Ex. P-2. Panchnama of the proceedings was duly prepared (Ex. P-1); and the statement of the appellant-accused was also recorded at about the same time (Ex. P-9 ).

(3.) STATION Officer of the P. S. Birsa, on receipt of the written report and other connected papers, recorded certain statements of the witnesses during investigation; and then put up the charge-sheet against the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused abjured the guilt. It was contended in the course of his defence that although 20 bags of the dhan bad been seized from his bouse, but his signatures on all papers, wherever they appear, had been obtained by the Food Inspector just on blank papers. According to him, the exercise-book Ex. P-3 was not the account-book of his business but was the account relating to his payment in kind i. e. in grain or dhan to his agricultural servants. It was contended that he and his brothers had jointly owned about 63 acres of agricultural land and the bags of dhan seized were only the produce of the said agricultural land. It was vehemently denied that he was engaged in the business of sale or purchase of any foodgrains. One witness was also examined in defence.