VIMAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants Vimal Kumar and Ashok Kumar (hereinafter described as accused) challenge their conviction under Section 3n of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the sentence of three months R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default two months simple imprisonment awarded by Sessions Judge by judgment dated 22-9-1986 in a summary trial acting as a Special Judge under Essential Commodities Act. 1955.

(2.) The prosecution story is that accused persons are partners of the shop carrying on business in the name and style of Agarwal Bandhu Trading Co. and hold licence under the Food Grain Licensing Order, 1965. On 1-3-1983 Vijay Singh Food Inspector (P.W. 2) checked the shop of the accused under superintendence of Amar Singh, Food Controller (P.W. 1)-at about 10 a.m. in the morning in the presence of accused Ashok Kumar. Opening stock as per stock register and purchases made on the date the total wheat stock should have been 184 quintals 5 Kg. and 100 grams. As per bills issued 7 quintals and 51 Kg. were sold on the day. Total stock on physical verification was found to be 187 quintals. Thus, the actual excess stock was found to be 10 quintals, 45 Kg. and 400 grams. A panchanama was drawn up, it was signed by Ashok Kumar, Panchas Manohar and Sawan. Seizure of documents were made and report forwarded to police who registered offence and put up challan against the accused persons.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge, Indore on 5-10-1983, explained particulars of charge of offence under Section on of Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3 of M.P. Foodgrains Licencing Order, 1965 and Condition 11 of the Licence issued there under to the accused persons. They denied the charge. In their examination the two accused admitted, the raid and drawing up of panchanama. They explained that the excess quantity of 10 quintals 45 Kg. and 400 grams of wheat to belonged to one Sawantram of Villege Piplda. They examined Sawantram to prove that excess quantity of wheat in 15 bags belong to him and that the accused made payment in respect of the same after two or three days. The learned Sessions Judge, disbelieved the defence of the accused and convicted and sentenced them a$ stated above.