NANHEY RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.3.1993 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Aurangabad in G.R. Case No. 2 of 1983 whereby the appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') and has been convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 7(1)(a)(ll) of the Essential Commodities Act.).

(2.) The informant Chanarik Yadav a (P.W. 3) who was the Mukhiya of Barokhar Gram Panchayat, filed a written report (Ext. 3) before the Officer-in-Charge of Haspura alleging therein that the dealer of village Tankupi, P.S. Haspura namely appellant Nanhey Ram is selling kerosene oil in black market, which is meant for distribution in public, keeping the same in the shop of one Kishori Prasad. The Mukhiya got this information from the witnesses namely, Ghuran Prasad (P.W. 4), Munarik Yadav, Ramesh Yadav (P.W. 6), Doman Ranjbanshi (P.W. 8), Briksh Rajbanshi (P.W. 7), Ramdeep Yadav (P.W. 9), Radhey Prasad (P.W. 10) and Birendra Kumar (P.W. 5). They informed the informant that the kerosene oil was kept at the shop of Kishori Prasad and when they went to purchase, it was not given to them saying that the oil has been exhausted. Thereafter, they rushed to the informant who filed a written report before the Officer-in-charge. On the basis of said written report, Haspura P.S. Case No. 64 of 1983 under Section 7 Essential Commodities Act was registered and thereafter a formal F.I.R. was drawn up which has been marked as Ext. 1. The matter was investigated into and the police found the case to be true and submitted charge sheet against the sole appellant. The person on whose shop the kerosene oil was kept and allegedly sold in black market was not sent up for trial. The substance of accusations was explained to the accused who pleaded innocence. Thereafter the trial proceeded.

(3.) In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and documentary evidence were also placed. The accused himself was examined as D.W.1 who proved some documents.