AMAL CHANDRA KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.1.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Special Case No. 5 of 1995 convicting the accused-appellants under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The accused-appellants have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 each, in default to suffer S.I. for a period of another one month more.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 9.3.1995, PW 1 Kalyan Borthakur, Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, Guwahati, along with other officers and staff of the department, visited the premises of M/s. Aahar Restaurant located at G.S. Road, Ganeshguri. The accused-appellant No. 1 is the owner of the aforesaid restaurant whereas the accused-appellant No. 2 is the manager. In course of the said visit, P.W. 1 found domestic L.P.G. Cylinders being used in the premises of the restaurant. According to the prosecution, the accused persons were unable to produce any document regarding the use/possession of the LPG Domestic Cylinders along with other apparatus like valves, regulators, rubber pipes, etc. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were also unable to produce any document to show that the LPG Cylinders and the connected apparatus were obtained from authorised sources. Accordingly, PW 1 seized 3(three) filled in and one empty domestic LPG Cylinders, 3 valves and 3 regulators vide seizure list (Ext. 1). The aforesaid seizure was made in the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4, who were witnesses to the seizure made. According to the prosecution, on the same day, the statements of both the accused persons were recorded, which statements were exhibited in course of the trial as Exts. 3 and 4. The seized articles were given in the custody of PW 2 (Tularam Muchahari). Thereafter, offence report (Ext. 5) was filed in the Court against the accused-appellants and after sanction for prosecution (Ext. 6) was obtained from the competent authority. Special Case No. 5/1995 was registered before the learned trial Court. Thereafter, charge under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act was framed against the accused-appellants for contravention of the provisions of Clause 3(i)(b) and Clause 6(i)(c) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993. The accused-appellants having pleaded not guilty, the trial commenced, in course of which 4 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who had also proved a large number of documents. After recording of the prosecution witnesses was over, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No evidence wa,s adduced by the defence. At the conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) The evidence of the prosecution, as unfolded by the witnesses examined on its behalf, may be briefly noticed at this stage. PW 1, Kalyan Borthakur in his deposition has stated that in the morning of 9.3.1995 he along with his supporting staff had visited the premises of M/s. Aahar Restaurant and found domestic LPG Cylinders being used in the hotel. The accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 identified themselves as the owner and manager of the restaurant. According to P.W. 1, as the accused persons could not produce any document to show that they were authorised to use the domestic LPG Cylinders in the restaurant arid further as the accused persons could not produce any document to show that they had procured the LPG Cylinders from authorized sources, PW 1, after preparing a seizure memo had seized the 3 filled in LPG Cylinders along with one empty cylinder together with three valves and 3 regulators. P.W. 1 has deposed that P.Ws. 3 and 4 were witnesses to the seizure, who had signed the seizure memo. He has also deposed with regard to handing over of the cylinders in the zimma of PW 2 and the recording of the statements of the two accused persons (Exts. 3 and 4). PW 1 has also proved the offence report Ext.5 filed in the case as well as the sanction for prosecution (Ext. 6), received from the competent authority. P.W. 2, Tularam Muchahari, was at the relevant point of time working as an Assistant Manager of one M/s. Hansa Gas Agency. He has deposed that on the date of the incident while he was coming towards the restaurant, he was called by one Inspector and thereafter he was given zimma of the seized cylinders along with the regulators. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are independent witnesses, who had deposed with regard to the seizure. Both the aforesaid witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 3 and 4 have deposed that the seizure had taken place in their presence and that they had signed on the seizure memo which signatures were duly identified by the two witnesses in question.