DASARATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short 'the Act') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief. is that Rajalal Sah (P.W. 9), Supply Inspector of, inspected the fair price shop of the appellant on 10.9.1987 in presence of the appellant and found that 10 quintal of wheat and one quintal of rice was lifted by appellant on 29.8.1987 from Bihar State Food Corporation, Motipur but he did not enter these commodities in his stock register as required. It is said that appellant lifted 490 liters of Kerosene Oil and 4 Quintals of Sugar on 15.8.1987 and entered the same in the stock register but consumers complained to the informant that appellant instead of supplying two litres of Kerosene Oil per family. used to supply to the consumers at the rate of half to one litre per family and that too at higher price. It is said that appellant used to charge from the consumers at the rate of Rs. 2.75 per litre of Kerosene Oil as against the prescribed rate of Rs. 2.38 per litre. It has been further stated that the appellant also used to charge higher price for the sugar. He used to charge at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per kgs. against the prescribed rate of Rs. 4.85 per kg. 17 consumers gave written statement before the Supply Inspector complaining about the aforesaid irregularity committed by the appellant. The Supply Inspector seized the stock registers, sale registers, cash-memo books and produced the same alongwith written statement of consumers at Baruraj police station at the time of lodging of the written information (Ext. 1). On the basis of the said written information, Baruraj P.S. Case No. 83/87 was registered and formal FIR (Ext. 2) was lodged. The Officer Incharge of Baruraj police station prepared a production list (Ext. 3) of the various registers and documents produced before him by the informant. After completion of investigations the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Accordingly cognizance was taken and subsequently the trial concluded with the result as stated above.

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.