SHEIKH AHMAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence dated 28. 11. 1998 passed by Special Judge, Sagar in Special Case no. 84/98 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to R. I. for 3 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional R. I. for 3 months.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in short is that on 24. 11. 1997 complainant Hariram submitted written application to the Food officer, Sagar to the effect that he purchased 5 liters kerosene from Hawker Sheikh Ahmad at the rate of Rs. 3/- per liter but which was found only 3 liters on measurement. When he made complaint to him he started quarrelling and abusing him and asked to do whatever he likes. The Assistant Food Officer, Sagar directed Sanmativeer Jain, Food Inspector to inquire the matter. In compliance of this order Sanmativeer Jain (PW-4) conducted the inquiry. He reached on the spot where he found that no kerosene was being supplied. He directed Hawker to distribute the same 2-2 liters per consumer who were present there. He recorded the statement of complainant. On measurement kerosene of complainant Hariram was found only 4 liters. He found that there was contravention of the directions issued by the Collector, Sagar and submitted the report to Food Controller, Sagar on 25. 11. 1997. The concerned authority directed to lodge F. I. R. In its compliance sanmativeer Jain, Food Inspector lodged report on 04. 12. 1997 at Police Station Cantt. where the Crime No. 519/97 under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the appellant. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the court of Special Judge, Sagar.

(3.) THE accused was charged under Section 3/7 of the essential Commodities Act. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contenting that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and the accused also examined one witness in his defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found him guilty under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced thereunder as stated hereinabove in para No. 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.