BISHANDEO SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for one year by the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate court, and hence this revision application.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30th April, 1979 at about 10.00 A. M. the complainant Sakil Ahmad, the then Supply Inspector (P. W. 2) accompanied by the then Assistant Marketing Officer (P. W. 3) inspected the shop premises of the petitioner, who was a retail kerosene oil dealer under the Bihar Kerosene Oil Dealers' Licensing Order, 1965 being his licence No. 2 of 1973. At the time of inspection the shop of the petitioner was closed and his nephew was near the shop. On request by the raiding party he opened the shop and the raiding party inspected the shop and seized the stock register and lound certain discrepencies in it. Seizure list 'Ext. 6) was prepared and thereafter on the next date P. W. 2 filed complaint alleging, inter alia, that there was no entry in the stock register after 19-4-1979. so there was violation of the terms and conditions of the Licensing Order. Another allegation was that the Sale Register and the Cash Memos were not produced by the petitioner at the time of inspection. Therefore, the terms and condition of the licence was violated. On these two allegations, the complainant prayed for taking action against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined three witnesses, out of whom P. W. 1 was a formal witness, P. W. 2 was the complainant himself and P. W. 3 was the Assistant Marketing Officer at the relevant time at Munger.