(1.) THE conviction of the appellants Sohan Singh and Hari Ram under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of the provisions of the Haryana Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Licensing Order') cannot indeed be sustained.
(2.) THE charge against the appellant Sohan Singh was that in September, 1983, he had purchased and sold kerosene oil without licence in contravention of Clause (3) of the Licensing Order.
(3.) AS regards the recovery of two drums of kerosene oil from the house of Sohan Singh, however, there is also of the statement of P.W.8 Mohinder Singh Sub-Inspector, Food and Supplies Panipat, but this is not a matter of much consequence as there can be no manner of doubt that mere possession of kerosene oil cannot, by itself, suffice to bring Sohan Singh within the definition of 'Dealer' under the Licensing Order. A dealer there being defined to mean "a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of kerosene oil, whether wholesale or retail." In other words, to hold Sohan Singh liable, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish something more than mere possession of kerosene oil. In this behalf, there is the testimony of P.W5 Naurang, who deposed that about a year ago, he had purchased 2 or 3 bottles of kerosene oil from him. It is pertinent to note, however, that in cross-examination, he was constrained to admit that he did not know the number of Sohan Singh's house, who resided in his neighbourhood and what Sohan Singh did. He also could not give the date of the month when he had purchased this kerosene oil from him. Further, according to him, it was only after a fortnight or month of his having purchased this kerosene oil that he went to the police post and made a statement. The testimony of this witness would clearly be very unsafe to be relied upon. It will thus be seen that the evidence against Sohan Singh falls far short of that required to render him liable for the offence charged.