LAWS(P&H)-1996-4-85

RULDU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On April 11, 1996
RULDU RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Special Judge, Bhatinda dated 21 -7-1986. The appellant Ruldu Ram and one Goverdhan Dass were sent by the officer incharge of Police Station Sardulgarh to face trial under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. The case sought to be proved by the prosecution before the trial Court was that on 11-8-1983 at 2. 00 p. m. Bakhshish Singh Dhillon, Agricultural Officer Manjit Singh and Amrik Singh Duggal Inspectors of Agriculture went to the shop of Kansal Agriculture Store situated at Sirsa Road, Sardulgarh for checking of fertilizers. Ruldu Ram appellant was present at the shop and he was transacting business there. Ruldu Ram is stated to have produced stock register which contained balance of 223 bags of fertilizers of N. F. L. quality, but on physical verification no such bags were found at the shop. Stock registers did not show any Urea lying in the shop for sale, but 28 bags of such Urea were lying in the shop for sale. These were rebated bags. Ruldu Ram failed to produce any licence for storage of these fertilizers. The inspecting team had taken samples of Urea. Joginder Singh Sub Inspector arrived at the shop in response to a telephonic call by Bakshish Singh Dhillon and took these bags into custody by a recovery, memo.

(2.) THE appellant along with Goverdhan Dass were charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. Upon recording of the evidence and completion of trial, the learned Special Judge found Ruldu Ram guilty of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violating Clauses 3, 5 and 14 of the Punjab Food Grains Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1978, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, or in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, Goverdhan Dass was acquitted. Aggrieved from this judgment and order of conviction the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) TO appreciate this submission of learned counsel for the appellant it will be relevant to notice that the learned Special Judge on the basis of F. I. R. No. 249 dated 11-8-1983, which was registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act but was for violation of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, framed the following charge on 11-10-1985:that on 11-8-1983 at about 2 p. m. , at Sardulgarh, you accused Rulda Ram and Goverdhan Dass were partners of Kansal Agricultural Store, Sardulgarh, and being incharge and responsible for the aforesaid firm, were dealing in the fertilizers without obtaining any licence from the competent licensing authorities, and you also did not maintain true accounts in respect of the stock and sale of the fertilizers, and you both violated the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control)Order, 1957, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 Essential Commodities Act, and within my cognizance.