RADHEY SHAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5/12/1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Special court, Hissar, whereby the appellant has been convicted to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for having committed an offence under Section 7 of the essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act, for short ).

(2.) CASE FIR No. 221 dated 22/6/1989 (Ex. PD/1) was registered at police Station City Hissar against the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 7 of the Act on the application submitted by singhram, Inspector, Food and Supplies Department, Hissar on 22/6/1989. It is alleged that the firm M/s. Radhey Sham Ram Avtar, Booth No. 63, new Grain Market, Hissar had no licence under the Haryana Food Articles (Licensing and Price Control) Order, 1985 ('control Order', for short ). The said firm had carried out business of purchasing of rice (jiri) as well. In this regard, the firm had produced Form ST-15 but the said firm had never submitted any return in the office of the Food and Supply Department, hissar. In this manner the aforesaid firm had carried out the business of trading in rice without obtaining any licence, as was required under the control Order. Therefore, it was requested that the necessary action be taken against the firm.

(3.) ON receipt of the aforesaid information, it was observed by the police that a prima facie case under Section 7 of the Act is found to be made out against the accused. Accordingly a case was registered under the aforesaid Section 7 of the Act. The police investigated the case and the accused was arrested in the case on 23/6/1989. Thereafter challan in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C. , for short) was filed before the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Hissar on 30/7/1990. The said Court on 8/1/1991 issued a show cause notice to Radhey Sham accused (appellant), which is to the effect that during the period from November 1987 to October 1988 in the area of Hissar his (appellant's) firm through him as its sole proprietor as well as he in his individual capacity carried on the business as a dealer by purchasing and selling paddy with various firms without obtaining licence in contravention of clause 3 of the Control order, which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly the appellant was required to show cause as to why action be not taken against him for contravention of the aforesaid provisions of law. The show cause notice was read over and explained to the accused (appellant) in simple hindi. A copy of the same was also given to him free of costs. The appellant did not accept the allegations as made in the show cause notice given to him and claimed trial.