ANGALAL DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.7.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Special Court Case No. 3/95 convicting the accused-appellants under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and imposing a sentence of R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default R.I. for another three months.

(2.) The prosecution case leading to the trial, conviction and present appeal can be briefly narrated as under: Shri Satya Prakash Choudhury, Sub- Inspector of Police, Enforcement Branch, Agartala lodged a suo moto FIR to the Officer- in-Charge of West Agartala Police Station alleging, inter alia, that he along with his staff visited Lankamura Fair Price Shop No.2 on 6.1.1995 and searched the Fair Price Shop, took into custody the relevant records and documents, verified the stock and found manipulation in records and stock of commodities, found the Display Board not properly maintained and as such he lodged the complaint vide West Agartala P.S. Case No. 2/95 under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The O/C endorsed the case to the said Sub-Inspector, Shri Satya Prakash Choudhury for investigation and on completion of investigation he furnished the charge sheet. The learned Special Court took cognizance, examined the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. to which the accused claimed to be tried and thus the learned trial Court conducted the trial. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses while the defence none. On conclusion, the accused Shri Angalal Debnath and Shri Narayan Ch. Debnath have been convicted and sentenced as already mentioned.

(3.) The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence recorded its findings details of which are available in paras 8,9,11 and 12 of the judgment. Having relied upon the testimonies of P. W. 1, Shri Satya Prakash Choudhury, Sub-Inspector of Police, Enforcement Branch, the learned trial Court held that on 18.9.94 according to the stock register and sale register of the Fair Price Shop the opening balance should have been 120 Kg while the figure "1" before figure "20" was found over written. On 19.9.94 the accused dealers received 2000 kg. rice vide D.O. No. 434 from the Goyt. stock and as such the total stock on 19.9.94 should have been 2120 kg. of rice. The accused have shown sale of 290 kg. of rice and as such the balance should have been 1830 kg. but it was shown as 1730 kg. So this shortage of 100 kg. of rice has been committed by the accused-appellants by manipulating the record. The learned trial Court also put reliance upon exhibits. P-4, P- 5 and P-6, three ration cards and held that the entries of the ration commodities alleged to have been sold to the ration card holders remained not entered into the ration cards and as such the learned trial Court arrived at its finding of guilt.