JAMUN SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the petitioner's conviction and sentence of R. I. for one year under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was originally recorded by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in G.R. Case No. 2200 of 1972 and was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judga, Munger.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 15-9-1972, 100 bags of wheat, after being taken delivery from the godown of the Food Corporation of India at Munger, were loaded on truck No. B. R. H. 2665 and instead of being taken to its proper destination, namely Krishna Stores Munger, it was diverted to village Hasanpur, P. S. Munger, Mufassil and there unloaded in three shops namely Aata Chakki shop of the petitioner Yamuna Sah, the shop of one Bhagirath Sah, and shop of Mahadev Sah and Baldev Sah. On getting information the Officer Incharge of Mufassil P. S. raided the three shops in presence of a Magistrate S. Nath and it is alleged that 48 and half bags of wheat were recovered from the house of the petitioner Yamuna Sah, 20 bags of wheat were recovered from shop of Bhagirath Sah aud 31 bags of wheat were recovered from the house of Mahadev Sah. The S. I. of Munger Mufassil, P. S. drew up the first information report on his own statement, registering the case under Section 7 of the E. C. Act and 414 of the Indian Penal Code against all the aforesaid shop owners and submitted charge sheet whereafter cognizance was taken in the case. The trials in the three cases were separated as the occurrence was at different places in different transactions. The other two shop owners were ultimately acquitted in appeal but the petitioner lust the appeal and hence the revision in this Court. The petitioner had not denied the recovery of 48 and half bags of wheat from his house but his clear defence was that he is an agriculturist and the wheat which was kept in his house was his agricultural produce and further that he is not a dealer and does not carry on business of purchase and sale of wheat and that the wheat recovered from his house was not meant for sale.

(3.) The point to be determined is whether the prosecution has been able to make out that any offence has been committed by the petitioner and whether the conviction and sentence passed against him are sustainable.