RAJ DEO SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case was heard on the 17th November, 1997, and Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, learned Additional Advocate General HI was requested to produce the Gazette Notification regarding fixation of the storage limit. Again, this appeal was listed on the 24th November, 1997 and at the request of the learned Addl. Advocate General III, this case was adjourned. Today, the Addl. Advocate General III has appeared and submits that apart from the letter, dated the 11th October, 1974, by which the storage limit was fixed, there was no Gazette Notification showing fixation of storage limit in terms of the provisions contained in the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 1984 Order'). Accordingly, this appeal is being disposed on the record and in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 17.2.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Vaishali at Hajipur in G.R. Case No. 1926 of 1984, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as amended by the provisions of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, for violation of the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967, and the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1977, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ .

(3.) THE prosecution examined altogether five witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 is Janardan Prasad Shrivastava, who is the informant in this case. P.W. 2 is Md. Safique Ansari, P.W. 3 is Baiju Lal Sah, P.W. 4 is Umesh Kumar Singh and P.W. 5 is Sukh Lal. Out of the aforesaid P.Ws. 2 to 4, P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the formal witnesses, who have proved the first information report. Two witnesses were also examined by the defence, namely, D.W. 1 Chhathu Lal Sah and D.W. 2 Gopal Choudhary. The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence on record, found the appellant guilty of the charge under the aforesaid Orders and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/ , as stated above.