CHAJJU RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the trial Court, vide which they were convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and appellant No.1-Chhaju Ram was sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months and appellant No.2-Tarsem Kumar was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months. Brief facts are that a secret information was received by the police that the appellants were selling kerosene oil in black. On the raid being conducted, both the appellants were seen rolling one drum towards the room and in all three drums were recovered. After trial, they were convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants has argued that in the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PK, it has been mentioned that the sampels were not numbered and consequently it was not identified that these were the samples taken from the three drums alleged to be recovered from the appellants.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants has further argued that the case property was not produced before the trial Court and has relied upon the statement of PW1-ASI Balbir Singh, where he stated that 'I have not seen the case property today in the Court'. The trial Court has also noticed that the case property was not produced before it. She has relied upon Suba Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984 1 RCR(Cri) 429, Partap Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997 4 RCR(Cri) 400and Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana, 2011 3 RCR(Cri) 416, wherein it was held that where the case property is not produced before the Court, it would thwart down the recovery.