SANTOSH BHOWMIK AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 30th April, 1990 of the learned Special Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Special Case No.13 (SC/B/1989 convicting the appellants under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing the appellant No.1 Sri Santosh Bhowmik to R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 only and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for one month and sentencing the appellant No.2, Sri Subal Goswami to R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.200.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for another 15 (fifteen) days.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.5.89 the Food Inspector submitted a written complaint to the Officer-in-charge of Baikhora Police Station stating that on 18.5.89 at 10 A.M. he inspected the East Charakbai FP Shop located at the Baikhora Market and verified the stock and sales registers of that shop belonging to the appellant No.1 Sri Santosh Bhowmik for the period from 16.5.89 to 18.5.89 and found that he lifted 6,300 Kg of ration rice vide D.O. No. 171 dated 15.5.89 and sold 5,540 Kg of rice as per the sales register. On a physical verification stock of 850 Kg of rice was available with the dealer. Accordingly, he found an excess of 90 Kg of rice. Similarly, the dealer had lifted 450 Kg of sugar on 6.5.89 and had shown the stock of sugar in his stock register on 13.5.89 as nil. But the physical stock of the sugar found was 30 Kg which was unauthorised. It was further alleged in the aforesaid complaint that the appellant No. 1 did not maintain a price list showing the stock held by him and prevailing price of different commodities and he did not obtain the signatures of the ration card holers in the sales registers. The complaint was registered as Baikhora P.S. Case No.3 (5) 89 and the Officer-in-charge of Baikhora Police Station handed over the case to the SI of Baikhora Police for investigation. The Investigating Officer seized the stock of rice and sugar, the stock and the sales registers, cash memos, the challans, the price list board in presence of the seizure list witnesses and at the time of seizure the appellant No.2, Sri Subal Goswami was a salesman of the dealer selling the goods at the FP Shop. After investigation of the case, he submitted charge sheet to the Court on the basis of which cognizance was taken and on the appellants' denying the charges, the case was tried by the Court.

(3.) In course of the trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, stated that he inspected the FP Shop and, verified the stock and sales registers of rice and sugar of the shop. He further stated that on 15.5.89 the dealer lifted 6,300 Kg of rice from the godown at Bagala and sold 5,540 Kg of rice as per sales register during the period from 16.5.89 to 18.5.89. Therefore, there ought to have been a stock of 760 Kg of rice but on physical verification it was found that the dealer had an excess of 90 Kg of rice in the shop. Similarly, he also inspected the stock of sugar and the stock register of sugar. In the stock register of sugar, the dealer had shown stock of sugar as nil on 13.5.89 though he had lifted 450 Kg on 6.5.89 and he had 30 Kg of excess sugar in stock. The dealer, however, could not give reasonable explanation for the excess rice and sugar in the stock and he did not display the price and stock of rice and sugar. He further stated that the dealer did not obtain signatures from the ration card holders in the sales register or in the cash memos. Accordingly, he lodged a complaint to the Officer-in-charge of the Baikhora PS marked as Ext. 1 and the SI of Police of Baikhora PS came to the shop and seized 30 Kg of sugar and 90 Kg of rice as well as the stock and sales registers and display board in presence of seizure witnesses. The seizure lists were marked as Exts.2 and 3. The appellant No.2 wrote the entries in stock and sales registers for the relevant period marked as Exts.4, 5, 6 and 7. The two seizure lists witnesses were also examined as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and the Investigating Police Officer was examined as P.W. 4.