DHRUB PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS suffered conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, on being tried 10. by Special Judge, Sitamarhi, in GR No. 6/86 Tr. No 16/90 and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that Rameshwar Singh, Officer Incharge of Bairgania Police Station (PW 2) on receipt of confidential information about having storage huge quantity of massor in the houses of the appellants for its smuggling to Nepal territory, laid a trap in their houses which situate in 15. village Musachak at about 11.30 a.m. on 6.5.1986. Those who are shown to have accompanied Rameshwar Singh were Smt. Asha Sinha, Additional Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi (not examined), and B.N. Prasad, Executive Magistrate, Sitamarhi (PW 3), It was alleged that while from the house of appellant Dhurb Prasad, there was seizure of 23 bags of Massor and 8 bags of Massor pulse, from the house of the appellant Narendra Prasad, there was seizure of 23 bags of 20. Massor pulse and 6 bags of Massor. It was also alleged that four bags of Massor was found loaded on 4 bicycles weighing 80 Kgs in each one while the alleged seizure was being effected, the appellants failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for storage of food commodity found in their premises and with these accusations, a formal first information report was drawn up at Sitamarhi Police Station and investigation commenced, on conclusion of which Police laid charge sheet in 25. the Court and the accused were put on trial. At trial, the prosecution examined altogether three witnesses. The defence too examined Ram Janak Sah (DW 1) and Munna Mahto (DW 2).

(3.) THREE -fold contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants and it is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that though the appellants were prosecuted for violation of instructions contained in Notification No. GSR 10, dated 24th February, 1985, issued by the State of Bihar, in view of their being no evidence against the appellants about movement of the 35. commodity in question, with an object to smuggle them to Nepal territory, the prosecution of the appellants on this score itself was unmerited. It was sought to be urged that even if there would have been some evidence about movement of commodity in question by the appellants with an object to smuggle them to Nepal territory, that too would not construe the violation of the terms of notification in question and reliance on this score was sought to be placed on a decision of the 40. Apex Court of the land in the case of Malkiat Singh and another V/s. The State of Punjab, AIR 1970. SC 713 wherein observation made by the Apex Court is that even when there is. merely preparation on the part of the accused to commit the offence yet there would be a presumption that the accused might have changed their mind at any place and not have proceeded further in their journey and the last contention raised on behalf of the appellants was that so far storage of Massor and Massor pulse in the premises of the appellants was concerned, no licence was needed for dealing in pulse and reliance on this score was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Satya Narain Prasad V/s. State of Bihar, 1988 PLJR 502.