STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MAHENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State appellant has felt aggrieved against the verdict of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge, Faridabad, on 12.1.1993, acquitting Mahender Kumar respondent under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (to be referred as "the Act") for having contravened the provisions of Clause 6(3) of Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988, by keeping in his possession, on 14.2.1991, three Gas Cyllinders (L.P.G. Refills) and two pressure regulators, without securing a consumer connection from an authorise distributor.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case, as disclosed by PW2 Ram Singh Police Inspector, who was posted in the Chief Minister's Flying Squad at Faridabad, is that on 14.2.1991, he raided the premises of M/s. Kakar Sweets, NIT, Faridabad, after associating with him other officials including S.K. Papneja, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Faridabad, and recovered two LPG Gas Cylinders fitted with regulators and an empty cylinder therefrom. One Ram Daini Prasad was found present in the business premises, at that time. PW2 addressed application Ex.PB to SHO P.S. Kotwali, Faridabad, for registration of a case against the proprietor of the Sweet House for contravention of the provisions contained in Clause 6(3) of Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988, and on the basis thereof this case was registered. Investigation was taken up by ASI Ram Kishan of P.S. Kotwali, Faridabad, who took into possession two filled Gas Cylinders, Exs. P1 and P2, fitted with regulators Exs.P3 and P4, and an empty-cylinder Ex.P5 vide memo Ex.PA.

(3.) AFTER holding trial, learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent due to three flaws in the prosecution case viz. (i) Police Inspector Ram Singh was not authorised to conduct the raid, (ii) it was Ram Daini Prasad who was looking after day to day affairs of the Sweet shop and the respondent was neither present nor was he called there, and (iii) there had been violation of Sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. as two independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality were not joined in the raiding party before searching the premises.