JITENDRA NATH KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.10.93 passed by Special Judge, Jorhat in Special Case No. 4 of 1990 thereby holding the Appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to undergo 3 months R.I. with fine of Rs. 100/ -or in default for payment of fine to suffer 3 months R.I. The accused Appellant was tried along with two others, namely, Lakheswar Bora and Bhowrilal Maheswari on the following charges:

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief was that the Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, Jorhat on receipt of a complaint inspected the record and godown of Dakhin Charigaon, Gaon Panchayat S.S. on 12.9.92, he found certain discrepancies in the record. 100 bags of atta which according to the prosecution had been lifted by accused Lakheswar Bora, Chairman of the Society from Maheshwari Flour Mill, Jorhat was not entered into the record of the Society, nor it has been distributed to the consumers. The allegations made in the report as submitted by Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies are as follows:

(3.) HEARD Mr. N. Dutta, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Mannan, learned Penal Lawyer for the Respondent -State. Referring and reading of the impugned judgment, the learned Counsel argued that the findings recorded by the trial Court are not only contracting of evidence, but they are self -contrary as well. It was the President of the Society who lifted 100 bags of atta from Maheswari Flour Mill, learned Special Judge referring to the statements of accused Lakheswar as recorded under Section313 Code of Criminal Procedure has noted that he had admitted that he lifted 100 bags of atta from Maheswari Flour Mill and according to him the same was distributed as per rules. Merely because, the accused Appellant happened to be Secretary of the Society who was supposed to deal with the business of the Society and the President has no such power which as has been noted by the trial Judge was delegated by the Secretary to the President. It is on the basis of so called delegated authority that the Appellant has been found to be guilty of the offence charged.