HASINA BANU Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order and judgment, I propose to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 312/2001 (Mustt. Hasina Banu vs. The State of Assam) and Criminal Appeal No. 330/2001 (Md. Moyassam Hussain vs. The State of Assam), which have arisen out of the common judgment and order, dated 11.9.2001 passed by learned Special Judge, Dhubri, in Special Case No. 04/98, convicting the accused-appellants under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the B.C.Act" ) for violation of the provisions of Clause 3 of the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Order of 1982") and sentencing each one of them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to under go simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(2.) Prosecution's case as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated thus : On 30.12.97, Md. Tobrijul Sajit Hussain, Sub- Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies (F&CS), Sapatgram Camp, (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") on being directed by S.D.O. (Civil), Bilasipara, visited the house of the accused-appellant No. 1 viz. Mustt. Hasina Banu and found 180 bags weighing 72 quintles of wheat lying at the varanda of her house. The appellant No. 1 could not produce any cash memo or licence to justify her storage of the said wheat, but she offered her explanation for the wheat, which had been so found, by saying that Md. Moyazzem Hussain (appellant No. 2) had taken Rs. 50,000/-, in cash, from her and had kept the said 72 quintles of wheat at her house for about 15 days and had promised to take away the same by repaying the said loan amount of Rs. 50,000/-. This statement was reduced into writing in the form of Ext.3, on 30.12.97, itself by the complainant. Subsequent inquiry revealed that the appellant No. 2 did not have any licence to function as a dealer under the said Order of 1982. The said 180 bags of wheat were seized by seizure list (Ext. 1) and the Zimma thereof, was given to appellant No. 1 by a Zimmanama (Ext.2), However, on his subsequent visit, on 10.01.98, to the house of the appellant No.1, the complainant found the said wheat missing and was informed by appellant No.1 that on 9.1.98, the entire seized wheat had been, once again seized by police. Further inquiry in this regard revealed that the said wheat had been seized by police in connection with Bilasipara Police Station Case No. 10/98 under Sections 406/420 IPC. The complainant aforementioned, then, laid a complaint in the learned Court below seeking prosecution and punishment of the accused-appellants under Section 7 of the E.C. Act for violation of Clause 3 of the said order of 1982.

(3.) During trial, particulars of offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act were explained to the accused-appellants, but both of them pleaded not guilty thereto and the trial proceeded.