MUNNALAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , Munnalal, has been convicted under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to one-year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or, in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment by the impugned judgment dated 3.10.1991 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 20/1986 by the Special Judge, Jabalpur.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, M/s. Nemchand Munnalal had a licence to sell kerosene oil as semi wholesale dealer at Panagar, District Jabalpur. On 24.8.1986 at about 11:30 a.m. Food Inspector S.K. Jain (PW 1) inspected the business premises of M/s. Nemchand Munnalal in the presence of appellant. During inspection it was found that stock register was maintained till 23.8.1986 and the opening balance of the stock of kerosene oil on that date was shown as 2400 liters. Since 200 liters of kerosene oil was sold on 23.8.1986, the opening balance of the stock for 24.8.1986 ought to have been 2200 liters, but on physical verification the stock of kerosene oil was found only 1340 liters. Thus, there was a short fall of 860 liters of kerosene oil, which was unlawfully disposed of. It was also found that actual stock and selling price of kerosene oil were not exhibited on the rate list. As the appellant and co-accused Nemchand were found to have contravened conditions 3 (ii), 4, 5 and 7 of the licence under the Madhya Pradesh Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1979 Order") they were charge sheeted under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The stock of 1340 liters of kerosene oil was seized vide Ex. P-l and given on supurdnama to the appellant. The stock register was, however, neigher seized nor produced during the trial.

(3.) THE defence of the appellant was that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated merely because he refused to grease the palms of Food Inspector S.K. Jain (PW1). The appellant also pleaded that M/s. Nemchand Munnalal was a proprietary firm of which Nemchand alone was the owner and, therefore, his prosecution under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was illegal. The appellant examined Mukul Sharma (DW 1), Lal Bahadur Yadav (DW 2) and Kashi Prasad Soni (DW 3) as defence witnesses in order to establish his defence.