SHIVAJI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants suffered conviction under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short 'E.C. Act '), for alleged violation of provisions of Section 3 of the E.C. Act, and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on being tried by Special Judge, Sitamarhi in G.R. Case No. 1005 of 1989.

(2.) THE factual matrix ''Chowkidar Bhagya Narain Rai (P.W. 3), acting on a tip off information about the appellants carrying diesel and mobil to Nepal territory for their smuggle and to secure high prices from the customers, laid a trap when seizure of two tins containing 20 litres of diesel and five tins containing 90 litres of mobil was effected from possession of the appellants which allegedly belonged to appellant no. 1. After the Police was set in motion, investigation commenced which was carried out by Shri Shivendra Sharma, Sub -Inspector of Police, Majorganj Police Station, within the district of Sitamarhi, and on conclusion of investigation, the Police laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that commenced before the Special Judge, Sitamarhi, while the State examined four witnesses including the Reporting Officer and seizure list witnesses, the appellants too examined two witnesses and both the State and the appellants also brought some documents on record. The defence of the appellants before the trial court and also this Court had been that the appellant no. 1 was a big cultivator, who was having pumping set and engine and it was on strength of the orders issued by the Block Development Officer that the commodity in question having been purchased in Sitamarhi, was being carried out for agricultural purposes and on premises of he being a bona fide purchaser, the appellants pleaded innocence and the trial court on consideration of evidences placed on record on behalf of the parties, while negatived the contention raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants, rendered verdict of guilt finding the appellants guilty under section 7 of the E.C. Act and sentenced them in the manner stated above which is being challenged in this appeal.