CHANDMAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 25.4.94, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, in Special Case No. 21/98, convicting the accused- appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential. Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") for violation of Clause 10 of the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Order of 1982") and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of seven days.

(2.) The case of the accused appellant, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows: On 22.9.89 at about 5 P.M., at Goreswar, Sri U.C. Bharali, Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies (F&C.S) along with a team from Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences (known as B.I.E.O), visited the shop of M/S Dharamchand Mahendra Kumar, a wholesale dealer of rice, which is a registered firm comprising of Chandmal Jain, (i.e. the appellant) and Dharam Chand Jain (who stands acquitted) as partners. As per stock register (M.Ex.l) and Display Board (Ext.3), there should have been 55 quintals of rice available at the shop, but on physical verification, only 45 quintals of rice were found indicating thereby a shortage of 10 quintals of rice without any supporting essential documents, viz., cash memo or invoice showing sale of the said 10 quintals of rice. The rice was seized, vide seizure list (Ext. 1), along with stock register, etc. from the possession of the accused-appellant. On the basis of a complaint made in this regard, after obtaining of required sanction (Ext.4), the accused-appellant along with Dharamchand Jain aforementioned were sent for trial as partners of M/s. Dharamchand Mahendrakumar aforementioned for alleged violation of the terms and conditions mentioned in paragraphs 3 (a) and 7 of the licence (M.Ext.4) and for contravening thereby Clauses 3 and 10 of the said Order of 1982 punishable under Section 7(1) of the said Act.

(3.) During trial, particulars of offences alleged to have been committed by the two accused aforementioned were explained to them, but both the accused pleaded not guilty thereto.