KISHORI PRASAD KESHARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having heard Shri Vijayanand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and shri Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State and after having gone through the evidence of the witnesses, what this Court finds is that the allegation is that the appellant, who stands convicted for committing offence under Section 7 of the Essentia! Com-modities Act and sentenced to simple imprison-ment for one month as also to pay a fine oT Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer simple impris-onment for one month more, is said to have loaded four bags of sugar on the Thela being driven by Tito Sao for being sold in the black market. The informant intercepted the Thela from where the appellant is alleged to have fled away. The informant, Raj Kumar Keshari, claim-ing the bags of sugar being taken for being sold in the black-market, gave an information to the Officer-in-charge of Islampur Police Station in writing whereafter a case was registered and after investigation the police sent up the present appellant for trial.

(2.) Fivewitnesses appear examined during the trial P.W. 1 is Tito Sao who was the Thela puller. He has not stated that the sugar which he was carrying belonged to the present appellant and he had got the sugar loaded on his Thela. P.W. 2, Naresh Paswan is a witness of seizure and he has admitted his signature on the seizure memo but has stated that there were small 3-4 bags of sugar on the thela. P.W. 3 is the police Officer who had taken the charge of investigation from P.W.4 who is the Investigating Officer and has stated that he had seized all the four bags of sugar and registered the case on receipt of the written report and, thereafter, submitted the charge sheet for trial of the present appellant. P.W. 5 is a witness of formal nature who has exhibited the statement of P.W.I recorded un-der Section 164 Cr. P.C. by a Judicial Magis-trate.

(3.) Thus, what I find from the resume of the evidence is that the informant of the case has not been examined in the case and even the evidence which was adduced before the trial court does not establish, firstly, that the bags of sugar which were seized by the police were sup-plied to the appellant and those supplies were made for distribution through Public Distribu-tion System. It also does not appear established that bags of sugar were being taken to be sold in black market, which was meant to be distrib-uted amongst the consumers, in violation of the licensing conditions of a licence issued for a Public Distribution System shop which was in the name of the appellant.