ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the accused against the judgment and order dated 23.4.88 passed by the Special Judge, Ujjain, in special case No. 5/86 whereby the appellant was convicted U/S 3/7 -A(1) of the Essential Commodities, Act, 1955 (For short 'the Act') for having committed breach of clause No.9 and 15 of M.P. Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred as 'Order').

(2.) IT was not in dispute that the appellant was retail licensee of kerosene oil u/s 5 of the Order at Badnagar. On 3.9.85 his retail shop was sealed and was inspected on 9.9.85 by Naib Tehsildar Kailashchand Tugariya (PW 5) and Food Inspect0r Ramchand Solanki (PW 6). The appellant had purchased 6000 Lts. kerosene oil on 29.8.85 and 2690 Lts. was found in stock. According to stock register article A, 12 Lt. kerosene oil was found less. Sale register was not found in the shop. The appellant produced stock register article A and sale register article B on 2.9.85. The sale register from 29.8.85 to 1.9.85 was not maintained and produced. Price list and stock list were not exhibited. Food Inspector Solanki produced his report Ex.P.7 which was forwarded by S.D.O. to S.O. police station Badnagar where offence was registered and after completion of investigation, challan was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication. The Trial Judge found only breach of condition No. 3(2) and 10 of the licence for not maintaining sale register and convicted the appellant u/s 3(2) (i) read with Section 7 A(i) of the Act and sentenced him 3 months S.1. and fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, two months S.I. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , sale register Article C, from 25.8.85 to 1.9.85, was produced before the Court. Under these circumstances, it could not be held that the appellant did not maintain sale register: The register Article C was available on Court record, therefore, the breach of condition No. 3(2) and 10 of the licence by the appellant does not arise, the appellant could not be convicted for violation of clauses 9 and 15 u/s 3/7 A(1) of the Act. The Trial Judge committed error in not putting reliance on the register which was available on record before him.