STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BARU MAL SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Haryana is aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.2.1990 by which Baru Mal Sadhu Ram, Vidya Rattan and Sadhu Ram had been acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra.

(2.) THE respondents along with one Mangat Ram were prosecuted for contravening clause 11(i) of the Haryana Food Articles (Licensing and Price Control) Order, 1985 and also violating clause 3(i) of the Licence issued under the said order and also infringing the conditions of Notification No. IL-88/16383 dated 16.10.1988 under the said order. They were also charged under clause 13 of the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1985 for violating section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(3.) WHEN the respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied simplicitor and false implication. When called upon to enter their defence, they examined Sushil Kumar as DW1 who deposed that there were excessive rains and floods in the year 1988 and the permissible limit of moisture was 22% in the purchased paddy. He also deposed that in the process of shelling, 50/60 bags of paddy were involved and any team coming for checking the stock ordinarily does not take these bags into account.