SHIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violating the provision of Section 6 (3) of the M. P. (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajanik Nagrik Purti Vitran Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "scheme" only) and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs. 1000/- against which he has filed this appeal.

(2.) AS per prosecution story allegation against the appellant was that P. W. 1 Shiromani Dohre, Asst. District Food Officer on 22-9-97 had inspected one Government control shop being run by Seva Sahkari Samiti Amola and appellant was working as salesman thereon and he found that the kerosene oil was not being distributed to the customers as per the prescribed rates. Neither the Ration Card numbers were mentioned in the distribution register nor the signatures of the customers were obtained in the said register. The stock register and rate list was not exhibited on the shop and therefore appellant violated the Clauses 6 (3) (5), 7 (4), 9 (1) and 12 of the Scheme.

(3.) APPELLANT was prosecuted for violating the provisions of the scheme. During trial A. W. 1 Asst. District Food Inspector Shiromani Dohre was examined and he has admitted that accused was selling the kerosene on prescribed rate and he had not taken any excess amount from the customers. He has also admitted that he had seized the stock register from the shop and he had not found any illegality therein and on the entrance of the shop price list and stock list was exhibited but he had stated that in the distribution register ration card number was not mentioned nor the signatures of the consumers were obtained. He had found that to one customer Harishankar kerosene oil was given eight times. Name of father of Harishankar has not been mentioned nor his signatures have been obtained and the names of ration card holders have also not been mentioned in the register. Ration cards Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-10 were also seized and after considering the evidence Trial Court found the appellant guilty of violating the provisions of the aforesaid scheme and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.