KAILASHKUMAR SATYADEV TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Kailashkumar challenges his conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Prices and Price Control) Order, 1977 (hereinafter called 'the Order') and sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, two months simple imprisonment awarded by Sessions Judge, Indore acting as Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that a team of food-inspectors on 17-10-1984 checked Geetanjali Gas Agency owned by appellant. On verification it was found that cooking gas was supplied to consumers at higher rate than fixed, accounts were not maintained properly and gas-connections were given to unauthorised persons at enhanced rates. The team then submitted their report Ex. P/1 to the Collector (Food) Indore, which in turn appears to have been forwarded to Police Station, Malharganj, which put up challan against the appellant for offence under Section 3/7 of the Act read with Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the order.

(3.) THE Special Judge on 4-3-1986 explained the particulars of offence under Section 3/7 of the Act read with Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Order, 1977 to the appellant. The order-sheet dt. 4-3-1986 shows that appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Prosecution examined Food Inspector) Dharmanarayan (P. W. 1), Purshottam (P. W. 2), Vishram (P. W. 3), Subhash (P. W. 4), Jagdish (P. W. 5) and Pradeepkumar (P. W. 6) in respect of its case. The appellant in his examination denied all the material allegations. He submitted that the gas was supplied only to those in whose names the gas connections were recorded in their register. According to him no irregularity was committed. The appellant filed affidavits of Puroshottam Waghale and V. M. Valambe in support of defence that though gas connections according to the register maintained at the Agency were in the name of different persons they have in fact been issued for these two persons. Learned Special Judge, however, found the case against appellant proved and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.