GOVIND PRASAD JAISWAL Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the 'Act') for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Order').

(2.) THE facts of the case are very brief. On 29 -1 -1978 at about 5 P.M. the Inspector of Supplies, Deogarh (P.W. 1) inspected the grocery shop of the Petitioner at village Balam in Deogarh Sub -Division. On verification of the stock he found that the Petitioner had declared in the price board that he had 34 K.Gs. of til oil although he had 48 K.Gs. of the commodity. He had declared that he had no stock of Eveready Torch Cell bearing No. 935 although he had stock of one such piece. He did not at all declare stock of Eveready Torch Cell bearing No. 945 although he had in his stock four such pieces. Besides these essential commodities, there was discrepancy in the stock of other goods. As the Petitioner prima facie contravened Clause 3 of the Order prosecution report was filed against him.

(3.) MR . Swain, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised very much contentions challenging the legality and maintainability of the prosecution report, probative value of documentary, as well as, oral evidence, but the only tenable one is that as the prosecution failed to prove that the Petitioner was a dealer in essential commodities, even if there was discrepancy as pointed out in the prosecution report, the Petitioner cannot be found guilty under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act for having contravened Clause 3 of the order. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Harsad @ Harshad Rai Desai v. The State, 50 (1980) C.L.T. 18 : Cr. R. No. 329 of 1978, disposed of on 20 -12 -1979.