KANHAIYALAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed challenging the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge cum special Judge. Sundargarh under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month more.

(2.) ON the basis of a prosecution report submitted by the Market Intelligence Inspector, Uditnagar, Rourkela, 2 (c) CC No. 6 of 1984 was initiated against the appellant which was subsequently converted to T.R. No. 6 of 1984 and was tried by the Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Sundargarh. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the allegations levelled against the appellant in the prosecution report are that on 23.11.1983, the Market Intelligence Inspector along with the Additional Civil Supply Officer and other Civil Supply executive staff checked the stock and accounts of Baby Food available with the appellant. Admittedly the appellant was a retailer in baby food and possessed a Baby Food retail licence bearing No. 110 of 1983. In course of such inspection it was detected that a stock of 64 packed tins of Vijaya Spray of 500 grams each and 17 packed tins of Lactogen (Full Protein) of 500 grams each were found in possession of the appellant which were not accounted for and were in excess of the accounts maintained by him. It was also detected that the appellant shop owner had not exhibited the board displaying the stock and prices of Vijaya Spray and Lactogen baby food which contravened Clause 3 of the Baby Food Licensing Order, 1966. According to the prosecution report, non maintaining the accounts and possessing excess baby food contravened conditions (4) and (9) of the Licence issued under the Orissa Baby Food Licensing order, 1966 which also in term violated Clause 3 of the aforesaid Order of 1966. After seizure of the excess stock, prosecution report was submitted which culminated, as stated earlier, in T.R. No. 6 of 1984.

(3.) THE trial Court after discussing the facts and circumstances of the case, arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had in fact not displayed the stock position and price of baby food in question and had thereby contravened the provisions of Clause 10 of the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Order, 1966, It was also held that the appellant had not duly maintained the stock of the baby food which was in his hand and was seized in his presence and thus contravened conditions (4) and (9) of the Baby Food Licence and thereby was deemed to have contravened Clause 3 of the Baby Food Licensing Order, 1966. The trial Court also categorically held that the appellant was liable to be punished under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On the basis of such findings, the trial Court held the appellant guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and convicted and sentenced thereunder. The appellant, as stated above, has filed this appeal inter alia challenging the said order of conviction and sentence.