POORAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried by the Special Court, Ludhiana, for the following two offences :-

(2.) WHAT has been found established against him is that on 10th June, 1984, when Joginder Singh PW 1 went to his depot to purchase a bottle of kerosene oil, he demanded Rs. 7- as its price. It was not disputed that the price fixed for such a bottle by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, under clause 3 of the Order referred to above was Rs. 2.10 only. Joginder Singh PW refused to purchase the kerosene oil at the demand price and started walking towards Police Post, Millar Ganj, Ludhiana, in order to lodge a complaint when ASI Piara Singh who was accompanied by two Head Constables and two Constables met him. He lodged his report with the ASI in the form of his statement Ex. PA. The same was forwarded to Police Station, Division No. 2, Ludhiana, for the registration of a case against the appellant. Right from there, ASI Piara Singh along with other police officials started for the depot of the appellant. On the way, PWs Inderjit Singh and Kishan Singh also met them. They too were jointed by the police party. On reaching the depot, ASI Piara Singh searched for kerosene oil and found that the appellant had atleast 70 litres of kerosene oil in his stock through as per the stock register and other records, it has been shown as nil. Besides taking these 70 litres in possession, the ASI also took into possession stock register, sale register and the purchase receipts of the kerosene oil vide Exs. PC, PD and PE and PF, respectively. Drum containing the kerosene oil, a tub a drill pump, a funnel and a tin-measure were also taken into possession vide Exs. P1 to P5 which were duly witnessed by PW 1 Joginder Singh, PW 2 Inderjit Singh, Kishan Singh and HC Satbir Singh. He also recorded statements of these witnesses. As a result of the completion of the investigation, the appellant was sent up for trial with the result as already indicated in the opening part of this judgment.

(3.) SO far as the appellant's conviction under charge No. (i) is concerned, it is urged by Mr. Cheema with some amount of vehemence that the conviction solely rests on the statement of Joginder Singh PW 1, and, therefore, it is not safe to uphold the same. The reasoning adopted by Mr. Cheema is that this witness in all probability was deposing against the appellant at the instance was his employer. PW 2 Inderjit Singh against whom the appellant had suggested some misbehaviour towards his tenant's wife. In a nutshell, the submission is that since Inderjit Singh was annoyed with the appellant on account of the fact that he objected to the misconduct of this witness he chose to instigate Joginder Singh PW 1 to depose in the manner he had done. I, however, see no substance in this submission. Inderjit Singh PW 2 has not accepted, and has rather categorically denied, that the appellant ever objected to any misbehavior on his part. Besides a suggestion to Inderjit Singh PW to the above-noted effect, there is no other material on record to lend support to the stand of the appellant. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that Inderjit Singh was in any way annoyed with the appellant, and, therefore, was instrumental in setting up Joginder Singh as a PW against him. Having perused the statement of Joginder Singh, I find that there is hardly anything to doubt his veracity. He has deposed in a forthright manner that on the 10th June, 1984, he had approached the appellant to purchase a bottle of kerosene oil and the letter of offered to sell the same at the rate of Rs. 7/- instead of the controlled price of Rs. 2.10. His immediate reporting the matter to this Police and the recording of the FIR on he basis of his statement and, as supported by the other PWs namely Inderjit Singh and ASI Piara Singh, lend enough of corroboration to his stand. I am, therefore, satisfied that the conviction of the appellant on account of charge No. (i) is not in any way shaky. At this stage, it is argued by Mr. Cheema that the sentence awarded to the appellant appears to be much too much. As a matter of fact, the sentence awarded to him is the maximum for an offence to be tried by way of summary trial. This submission is full of merit. The appellant is a petty deot-holder and to sent him to jail for two years for attempting to sell a bottle of kerosene oil at a price higher than the one prescribed appears to be too harsh. I, therefore, while setting aside the sentence of imprisonment under charges No. (i) impose a fine of Rs. 1,500/- on this count. Fine, if already paid by him, would be adjusted towards the payment of this amount of fine.