PRADIP KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned judgment and order, dated 27.07.98, passed, in Special Case No. 05/96, the accused-appellants stand convicted under Sections 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (in short, 'the EC Act') for violation of the provisions of Clause 3 of the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982 (in short, the order of 1982) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows: PW1, who is an Inspector of the Food and Civil Supplies, Govt. of Assam, accompanied by PW2, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, engaged in economic offences, visited the business premises of M/ s. Laxmi Agencies, situated at Pandu Borbazar and they found there 45 quintals of Tata iodised salt stored for sale. On demand, the accused-appellant No. 2, Anil Kumar Jain, Manager of the said business concern, who was present there at the time of the said visit, failed to produce any licence for storing and selling of the salt. PW1, then, seized the said salt by Seizure List (Exhibit 3) in the presence of PW2 and another independent witness, namely, PW3 and gave, vide zimmanama (Exhibit 2), the said seized salt into the custody of the accused-appellant No. 2. PW1 also recorded the statement, in writing, (Exhibit 4) of the accused appellant No. 2. The contents of the display board, which was displayed at the said business premises with regard to the stored articles for sale there, were extracted on a price of paper, the contents, so extracted, being reflected by Exhibit 5. Thereafter, on obtaining sanction for prosecution (Exhibit 3), PW 1 submitted the offence report (Exhibit 6) against the accused-appellants, the accused-appellant No. 1 being the proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Agencies aforementioned.

(3.) During trial, which was summary in nature, when the learned Court below explained to the accused-appellant the particulars of offence alleged to have been committed by them, the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty thereto.