STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. TEK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Special Judge, acquitted the respondent for the offences charged under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in short the Act, in E. C. Case No.1 of 1995 decided on 19.2.2000. The State felt aggrieved, thus filed the instant appeal.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details the prosecution case can be summed up thus: The respondent was posted as Public Distribution Clerk Incharge of wholesale Depot at Salooni. In the month of July 1994 he was entrusted 88 quintals of levy sugar for its supply to the different fair price shop holders. It is alleged that he had shown in his stock register more quantity of levy sugar than actually supplied to Sh. Chain Lal (PW7) of Sanghni Depot, Partap Chand (PW8) of Singhadhar Depot, Naresh Kumar (PW9) of Nirohi Depot, Dharam Singh of Banjwar Depot, and that the respondent did not supply at all, the levy sugar to Sh. Ashok Kumar (PW15) whereas the respondent had shown having supplied, two quintals to him in his stock register. The total supply of sugar was shown to have been made 100 quintals by the respondent as against 88 quintals. In this way the respondent is alleged to have fudged the record and sold the sugar on higher rates i.e. Rs.1490/- per qunital as against Rs.905/- per quintal to different persons illegally by reflecting wrong entries in his stock-register. Sh. Satya Parkash, Food and Supplies Inspector (PW10) on inquiry found that the cash memos did not bear the signatures of the depot holders, who had complained of supplying less quota of levy sugar than actual. Thus he took into possession three stock registers and two exercise books wherein the stock was shown to have been received by the depot holders and sent a complaint Ex.PV to the S.H.O. Police station Chmaba for the registration of the case against the respondent. The respondent was transferred and Sh.Gian Singh (PW2) was posted in his place. The police took into possession the relevant record and after investigation put up the challan against the respondent in the court for trial.

(3.) I have heard Sh. V. K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State and Sh. Anup Chitkara, learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.