SHIV SHANKAR CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment and order dated 23.6.1992 passed by Sri Kunjal Sai Miru Toppo, the then Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Darbhanga, in T.R. No. 15 of 1988 (arising out of Biraul P.S. Case No. 28 of 1988). By the impugned judgment and order the appellant on being convicted for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "E.C. Act") for violation of the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order) has been imposed a sentence to undergo R.I. for one year.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that the informant R.K. Jain, Magistrate Incharge of Flying Squad, Benipur Subdivision along with Supply Inspector Bal Govind Jha and Sub -Election Officer Mahaweer Prasad visited the shop and godown premises of accused Shiv Shankar Chaudhary on 20.4.1988. Although the shopkeeper was found absent, his brother Ramsudist Chaudhary was found transacting business in the shop but as the godown premises was found locked, the raiding party could not inspect the shop and godown premises and, therefore, sealed both of them. On the following day the seals were broken open and upon inspection of the shop and godown premises in the presence of Ramsudist Chaudhary 17.85 quintals of food grains and 64 tins of 1/1/2013 Page 276 Union Of India Versus Kaushalya Devi "Mala" Brand mustard oil weighing 9.60 quintals were seized from the godown premises under a seizure list (Ext. 1) and the same were handed over to Ramsudist Chaudhary under a Jimanama (Ext. 4). It was stated that although the food grains seized were within the permissible limit for a retail dealer but the mustard oil was found beyond the permissible limit of 5 quintals. On the basis of the same Biraul P.S. Case No. 28 of 1988 was registered and after submission of chargesheet against the accused the substance of accusation was explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) I have perused the materials available on record and I am firmly of the opinion that this appeal must be allowed the reasons wherefor are stated herein below.