SANTOKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-appellant Santokh Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was tried under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, for committing violation of Rule 3 of Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1988. Consequently, he was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The allegations as unfolded by the prosecution are that on 6.9.1991, ASI Mukhtar Singh received a secret information near bank chowk Islamabad, Amritsar, against the accused for keeping in his unauthorised possession gas cylinders with liquified petroleum gas and he was transferring the gas with the help of gauze from one cylinder to the other and was selling the same un-authorisedly. Consequently, after sending ruqa Ex.PB, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PB/1 was recorded, he proceeded towards the place of occurrence. The accused was found present in the house and was seen removing gas from the filled cylinders to the empty cylinders. Out of 15 cylinders (Ex.P1 to Ex.P15), 9 cylinders were filled with LPG and six were empty. Consequently, all the 15 cylinders along with gauze were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PC. Rough site plan Ex.PP was prepared. On completion of the investigation, challan Crl. Appeal No.126-SB of 1995

(2.) against the accused was presented in the Court. Finding a prima facie case, the accused was charged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On commencement of the trial, the prosecution examined HC Vijay Kumar (PW1), Harpreet Singh (PW2), ASI Baldev Singh (PW3), Sher Jang Singh (PW4), ASI Mukhtiar Singh (PW5) and Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, EMO (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in this case. During defence, he examined Kulwant Singh (DW1) and closed his defence. On scrutiny of the evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him accordingly. Hence this appeal. I have heard Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.S. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and perused the records of this case with their able assistance. It has been urged forward to convince the mind of the Court that the accused had nothing to do with the offence. He was an employee of Sandeep Gas Agency to whom the cylinders are related, therefore, he being delivery man was supplying the cylinders to the public. In this connection he examined Kulwant Singh (DW1) Manager, Sandeep Gas Service, Amritsar. Having gone through the statement of Kulwant Singh (DW1), it comes to light that as per salary statement Ex.D1 and Ex.D3, the accused was his employee during the months of July and August, 1991. He did not produce any such salary statement for the month of September, 1991, in which the occurrence took place. As a matter of fact, Kulwant Singh (DW1) admitted during cross-examination that he remained in service up to 2.9.1991, whereas this offence took place on 6.9.1991. Consequently, the accused could not be said to be an employee of Sandeep Gas Service on the day when he was arrested along with cylinders at his house. Assuming for the sake of arguments that he was employee of Sandeep Gas Service, even then he had no authority to take cylinders, as handed over to him by the Crl. Appeal No.126-SB of 1995

(3.) dealer to his house instead of delivering the same to the consumers. It is the definite case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 9 cylinders in a room. He has also not proved any such voucher regarding delivery of these cylinders to the consumers. No consumer has been examined who had got issued the cylinders for delivery at their house on the day of occurrence. In any case, this witness has given a different statement that on 6.9.1991 police took into possession 15 cylinders of Sandeep Gas Agency but this statement also appears to be false. Had it been so, then according to him company was bound to inform about such incident to Bharat Petroleum but no such report was submitted by the Gas Agency, nor any complaint was made by the dealer to any higher authorities regarding taking of the gas cylinders by the police. As a matter of fact, the accused cannot wriggle out of the case as he appears to have suffered injuries in the process of conversion from filled gas cylinders to empty gas cylinders. Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, EMO, Civil Hospital, Amritsar (PW6), who had medico-legally examined the accused on 6.9.1991, at about 6.10 PM, found the following injuries on his person :- 1. Infected burn wound on the dorsum of both the feet and both the hands.