MEGHAN RAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by appellant Meghan Rai who has been convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year by judgment and order dated 5.8.1993 passed by Shri Philip Topno, Special Judge, Begusarai in G.R. case No. 754 of 1987, arising out of Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 22 of 1987. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order the sole appellant Meghan Rai has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case as per the written report (Ext. 5) submitted by informant Awadhesh Prasad Sharma, Supply Inspector, Matihani at the Matihani Police Station on 12.4.1987 in brief is that on 3.4.1987 at about 3.00 P.M. he along with Sachidanand Prasad, Block Supply Officer, Matihani had gone to inspect the P.D.S. shop of one Bisundeo Rai situated at village Dariapur, P.S. Nayagaon. On reaching there he found 74 quintals of rice containing in 74 bags kept at the Varandah of the shop. At the said place weighing machine and weights were also found. The P.D.S. shop owner Bisundeo Rai who happens to be own brother of appellant was found present there. He disclosed that the appellant had brought 101 quintals of rice from Bhojpur about 2-3 days back out of which he sold 27 bags of rice and the remaining 74 bags were lying at the Varandah. It is said that at the time of enquiry the appellant Meghan Rai managed to keep him away from the said shop. On demand Bisundeo Rai failed to produce any paper to the informant which showed that appellant Meghan Rai was dealing in rice without obtaining license and hence the informant seized all the 74 bags of rice in presence of witnesses and handed over to Bisundeo Rai on his execution of Zimmanama. Thereafter the informant reported the matter to the S.D.O,, Begusarai, who directed him to file F.I.R. against the appellant and thereafter the informant filed written report to the Police Station on the basis of which Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 22 of 1987 under Section 7 of the E.C. Act was instituted against the appellant. After investigation of the case the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant on the basis of which the appellant was put on trial and by impugned judgment he was convicted.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned advocate of the appellant that the finding of the Trial Court is perverse, as there is absolutely no material on record that the seized bags of rice belonged to the appellant. The iearned advocate submiited that in this case the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses but none of the witnesses except P.W.5, informant, has supported this fact that the seized bags of rice belonged to the appellant. The learned advocate submitted that the written report of the informant which is Ext. 5 itself shows that P.W. 5, informant, had gone to inspect the P.D.S. shop of Bisundeo Rai and according to the written report as well as the evidence of P.W. 5 the said Bisundeo Rai was also present at his P.D.S. shop at the time of inspection but admittedly the appellant was not present there regarding whom it was mentioned in the written report that he managed to keep himself away from the said shop. The learned advocate submitted that the written report (Ext. 5) shows that on the statement of Bisundeo Rai the informant incorporated this fact that 74 bags of rice kept at the Varandah belonged to the appellant but the said Bisundeo Rai was not examined by the prosecution and the other witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution did not support this fact that any seizure of bags of rice belonging to the appellant was made by P.W.5 in their presence. So in the absence of examination of Bisundeo Rai there was no material available on record to hold that the seized rice belonged to the appellant. The learned advocate further submitted that P.W. 5 has falsely stated before the Court that he had made enquiry from the appellant, who did not produce any paper of the seized rice.