LAWS(P&H)-2003-1-351

MAMAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On January 22, 2003
MAMAN CHAND Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Maman Chand son of Ram Kumar aged 30 years (age taken from charge-sheet) stands convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani under Sec. 7(1)(b) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months.

(2.) In short, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was a food grain licensee from Food and Supplies Department, Haryana and on 3.1.1989 he had lifted 47 quintals 50 kgs. of wheat in 49 bags with F.C.I. marks for public distribution at his depot situated at B.T.M. Road, Bhiwani. This wheat was lifted vide R.C. No. 252 dated 2.1.1989. The allegation against the appellant further is that instead of distributing this wheat to the ration card holders, the same was sold to one chakkiwala and when the wheat was being transported from his depot the chakki owner, on the way in Naya Bazar, HC Om Parkash along with other constables intercepted him and found 13 bags in one bullock-cart driven by Jaipal and in two rickshaw pulled by Mahabir and Ram Pehlad. There were four bags of wheat in each rickshaw. Maman Chand appellant was then enquired by HC Om Parkash in respect of production of any paper regarding transportation of wheat from his depot but he could not show any document. Consequently, the bullock-cart and rickshaws were taken into possession. On the basis of ruqa Ex.PH formal FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared at the spot. Besides this, statements of all the relevant PWs were recorded under Sec. 161 Code Criminal Procedure The appellant was thereafter arrested in this case.

(3.) The trial Court charged the appellant under Sec. 7(1) of the Act for having contravened the provisions of Clause IInd and IIIrd of Haryana Food Articles (Licensing and Price Control) Order, 1985. On consideration of entire evidence, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as stated above.