STATE OF M.P. Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondent for offence under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by judgment dated 29.1.1982 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, in Criminal Case No. 611 of 1980.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the respondent was that he was a foodgrain dealer and had been licensed to distribute wheat, sugar and kerosene oil to ration -card holders through his fair price shop at village Tandapara, District Raigarh. On 18.5.1980, Mohammad Ibrahim, Food Inspector (P.W. 1), inspected his shop and found that he had not maintained stock register, nor had he maintained the distribution register. Shri Ibrahim also recorded statements of some purchasers who complained that the respondent was selling sugar and kerosene oil in black -market. Thereafter, the respondent was put on trial as aforesaid. During the trial, P.W. 1 Mohammad Ibrahim proved stock register (Art. A) and distribution register (Art. B) which he had seized from possession of the respondent. He also proved statements recorded by him of various other purchasers, indicating that this respondent was selling sugar and kerosene oil at the higher rate than fixed. P.W. 2 Lalaram was one of the persons who claimed to have purchased kerosene oil and sugar at higher rate. In his statement, this witness said that he purchased kerosene oil at the rate of Rs. 1 -70 per liter and he did not remember the rates of other articles. He was, therefore, declared hostile and permitted to be cross -examined by A.P.P. In cross -examination by A.P.P. he admitted having given statement to the Food Inspector and having stated that he had purchased sugar at the rate of Rs. 3/ - per kg and the rice at the rate of Rs. 2/ - per kg. In cross -examination, he admitted that he purchased rice at the Rs. 1 -95 per kg and kerosene oil at the rate of Rs. 1 -70 per liter. He was re -examined by the A.P.P. and stated that his statement given to Food Inspector was correct, No other witness was examined to prove the black -marketing. The learned Magistrate held that the evidence of P.W. 2 Lalaram was not worthy of credence and, therefore, it was not proved that the respondent sold sugar and kerosene oil at higher rates. As far as not maintaining the register was concerned, the learned Magistrate held that the stock register was blank, but the statement of the respondent that he used to make entry after sale, was accepted as sufficient. That is how the respondent was acquitted. It is this judgment which is impugned in this appeal.

(3.) PERUSAL of the stock register would indicate that it is blank. Clearly, therefore, the respondent has not entered the commodities available with him in the stock register. The sale register (Art. B) further indicates that quantity sold to each of the persons mentioned therein and price charged is not written. It is not disputed that all these details were required to be mentioned. Apparently, therefore, this respondent is guilty of breach of licence condition and, consequently of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The explanation given by him that he used to complete these registers after sale, cannot be accepted in view of clear and cogent obligation imposed upon him by law. Under the circumstances, he must held guilty of violating the provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, for which punishment is provided under section 7(a)(ii) of the said Act. This Court has, therefore, no hesitation in convicting the respondent for the aforesaid offence.