JAWAHAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has been convicted under Section 7(i)(a)(i) of the E.C. Act. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 12-5-1983 at about 1.30 p.m. the Supply Inspector alongwith the Assistant District Supply Officer and other officers inspected the business premises of the appellant Jawahar Prasad which was situated at Karmnasha Bazar, P.S. Durgawati, District-Rohtas. It has been stated that the appellant was wholesale licensee holding licence No. 750/81 and his firm was named and styled as M/s Parvati Bhandar. At the time of inspection, the appellant Jawahar Prasad was not present there. However, his two agents were present who were conducting the business. THE inspecting party found the notice board displaying the price and stock hunged but his employees did not produce the relevant registers in connection with sale and purchase of the foodgrains on demand. THEreafter, the informant Jagdish Singh made a physical verification of the stock. He found that there was discrepancy in the actual stock and the stock shown in the notice board. It was found that 87 quintals 67 kilograms and 500 grams paddy was displayed whereas 93 quintals 75 kilograms paddy was actually in the stock. Similarly 100 quintals Khasari was displayed on the notice board whereas 118 quintals was found in the stock. Similarly 75 quintals Masur was displayed on the notice board whereas 77 quintals Masur was found in the stock. No stock of Tisi was displayed on the notice board but 2 quintals 40 kilograms Tisi was also found in the stock.

(3.) AS stated above in the present case the evidence was recorded by different presiding officers and finally the judgment was delivered by the Special Judge the basis of the evidence recorded by his predecessor. The Special Judge who delivered the judgment had not recorded the evidence of the witnesses, AS such he could not have proceeded from the stage where his predecessor had left the case and would not had used the evidence recorded by his predecessor. Therefore, the judgment and order is vitiated on the ground of the said illegality and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.