STATE Vs. CHIRANJILAL AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOVERNMENT Appeals Nos. 7 and 8 of 1955 were filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondents Chiranjilal Agarwalla and Lachhminarayan Sharama respectively who were tried separately in two cases on charges for an offence punishable under Section 7 of Act 24 of 1946 and were acquitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bamanghaty, Rairangpur. Both the appeals were heard together as there are common questions of' law and as some common questions of fact are involved in both the appeals.

(2.) THE prosecution case in Government Appeal No. 7 of 1955 is that, on 6-5-53, the Enforcement Supervisor, Rairangpur inspected the accounts of yarn of Ramawater Agarwalla, the yarn retailer, Rairangpur and found heavy shortages in respect of 10s, 14s and 20s, yarn and detected that Ramawater Agarwalla had shown fictitious sales in names of many persons including the respondent by issuing ante-dated cash memos. The Supervisor then inspected the shop of the respondent on 26-5-53 and found several irregularities. The irregularities found against the respondent are four in number. The first is that he made a fictitious purchase of 4 bales of 10 s yarn from Ramawater Agarwalla on 3-5-53 and showed disposal of the same within a period of four days and made incorrect entries in his accounts in contravention of condition No. 1 (b) of the license. The second is that, on 3-5-53, the respondent dropped 40 bundles of yarn out of his account and on 6-5-53 he showed an excess of sale of one bundle over the real sale and that on 13th, 14th and 16th May, 1953 he showed no sale in the sale Register whereas his stock Register showed sales of 40, 14 and 10 bundles of yarn respectively and thus maintained incorrect accounts in contravention of condition No. 1 (b) of the license. The third is that he showed, in his account books, bogus sales of yarn to weavers, in contravention of condition No. 1 (b) of the license, and the fourth is that the cash memos issued by the respondent do not contain the names and addresses of the purchasers and also not in accordance with the legal instructions which are in contravention of condition No. 4 of the license.

(3.) THE prosecution case against the respondent in Government Appeal No. 8 of 1955 is that the Enforcement Supervisor inspected the shop of Ramawater Agarwalla of Rairangpur on 6-5-53 (on the same day as in the above case) and found heavy shortage of yarn. On investigation he got information that Ramawtar Agarwalla had shown disposal of the yarn in favour of some persons including the respondent in a fictitious manner by showing ante-dated cash memos in order to account for his shortage. The Enforcement Supervisor inspected the shop of the respondent on 20-7-53 and found several irregularities. In this case also there are four irregularities found by the Enforcement Supervisor. The first is that the respondent made a fictitious purchase of one bale of 12 s yarn from Ramawatar Agarwalla on 4-5-53 and showed disposal of the entire quantity on 11-5-53 to seven persons only and made incorrect entries to that effect on the Stock Register in contravention of condition No. 1 (b) of the license. The second is that in the seven cash memos relating to the above transactions, signatures and addresses of four purchasers were found legible and those of others were found to be of fictitious persons and that the disposal of the yarn shown against them was found bogus. The third is that the respondent maintained accounts of 20 s and 36 s dyed yarn together in contravention of the condition No. 1 (b) of the license and the fourth is that the respondent did not take legible signatures from the purchasers on the duplicate copies of cash memos relating to the above transactions in contravention of condition No. 4 of the license read with Government Notification No. 29272 dated 208-52.