RADHA PRASAD BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the appellant was prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for violation of clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order 1984, and also clauses 3 (a) and 7 of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks).Order, 1977, he suffered conviction only for violation of clause 3(a) of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) Order, 1977 on exoneration of the charges of former and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months.

(2.) THE factual matrix ''the business premises of the appellant was allegedly inspected by Shri Shobha Kant Mishra, the then Marketing Officer (P.W. 5) in presence of other officials and it was found that ten quintals of maize and 30 quintals of wheat were kept in the business premises for which neither licence stock register or other allied papers were ever produced before the Inspecting authority. It was also noticed that the appeflant had not displayed the Board for exhibition of stock and price position. After the Police was set in motion, investigation commenced, on conclusion of which the Police laid charge sheet before the Court and the appellant was eventually put on trial. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether six witnesses including the Reporting Officer. The defence of the appellant before the trial court and also this Court was failure of the prosecution to establish violation of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and also the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) Order, 1977 and the trial court while negativing the contention raised on behalf of the appellant finding the appellant not guilty of the former charges, convicted him of the latter charges and sentenced him in the manner stated above which is being challenged in this appeal.

(3.) ON consideration of the agruments canvassed on behalf of the appellant, it can be noticed that since the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 was not workable on the day of the incident, rightly no mens rea can be attributed to the appellant for his failure to display stock position on a conspicuous place of the business premises. Even though the appellant was found guilty for violation of the provision of Section 3(a) of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) Order, 1977, the evidence operating adverse to the appellant on this ground was admittedly not put before the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, hence, the evidence on this score could not have been used against him to render the verdict of guilt by the trial court and hence, since the cognizance was a belated exercise of the Court by virtue of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not only the cognizance but even the subsequent proceeding had vitiated and in these premises, I am constrained to hold that the finding recorded by the trial court could not be sustained in law which is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against his. He is discharged from the liability of the bail bounds. This appeal is accordingly allowed.