GIANI RAM Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by accused-appellant, Giani Ram against the judgment and order dated 20/22.5.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge Sonepat under the Essential Commodities Act), vide which the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment to undergo further RI for one month.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution against accused-appellant was that on 1.2.1991, Dharam Singh, Assistant Food and Supply Officer with Dhan Raj, Inspector and Satbir Singh, Sub Inspector, Food and Supplies had gone to the ration depot of the accused in village Gamri for the purpose of checking and that on asking he had produced sale register Exhibit P-A and stock register, Exhibit P-A/1, which were maintained at his depot. On checking, it was found that the accused-appellant, Giani Ram had 57 quintals of wheat in his stock on 17.1.1991, whereas on 1.2.1991, the stock of wheat was nil and the last entry in the sale register was dated 24.1.1991. The officials of the Food and Supplies Department. visited the village and contacted various ration card holders, who deposed that in the month of Jan. 1991, they were supplied 10 kg of wheat each by the accused, whereas in the sale register the entries in respect of the said ration card holders showed that large quantity of wheat was supplied to those ration care holders in the month of January, 1991. Thereupon, the matter was reported to the police on the basis of which the present case was registered against the appellant.

(3.) IN respect of its case, the prosecution examined various witnesses. Thereafter the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In the said statement accused stated that he was innocent and had been falsely impleaded in this case. He admitted that against various entries in respect of the ration card holders examined by the officials of the Food and Supplies Department, he had made entries in respect of sale of 60-80 kg of wheat in the sale register, Exhibit P-A. However, he denied that he had supplied only 10 kg wheat to them at the relevant time. In his defence, he examined DW-1, Kundan Lal and DW-2, Chander Singh. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as referred to above. Aggrieved against the same, accused-appellant filed the present appeal in this Court.