HASNAIN AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 27.4.1993 passed by Special Judge, Motihari in Trial No. 148 of 1993 (E.C.Case, No. 19 of 1990) by which he has been found guilty under Section 7 (1) (a) (i) of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of terms and conditions of the licence granted under Bihar Trade Articles Licences Unification Order,1984 and has been convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari and Marketing Officer, Motihari town inspected the business premises of the appellant which was situated in Mohalla Balua Tal, P.S. Motihari town. He was a retail dealer of coal for an area of Raja Bazar Mohalla. His licence number was 9 of 1985 and he was authorized to deal in coal. According to prosecution, at the time of inspection of business premises, the appellant was not present, rather one Motilal Sah was present. On being demand Motilal Sah produced relevant documents of coal. Counter foils of cash memo and sale register were seized for the purpose of verification of the same. On verification on 24.7.1990 it was fond that the coal was sold to one Bharat Sah at the rate of Rs.125/- per quintal vide cash memo no. 835 dated 3.5.1990 but cash memo was not issued. Further it was detected that Dhurub Sah of the said place purchased 2 quintals of coal at the rate Rs.125/- per quintal but the cash memo was issued for two quintals of coal at the rate of R3.75/- per quintal. Further it was detected that Baltu Manjhi purchased 2 quintals of coal for his master at the rate of Rs.125/- per quintal. Later on, cash memo was issued in the name of Baltu Sah at the rate of Rs.75/- per quintal on 3.5.1990. Similarly, Nagina Singh and others also purchased coal at different rate i.e. Rs.75/-, Rs.130/- and Rs.l50/-per quintal but they were not granted proper receipts, rather some receipts were shown to have been issued at the rate of Rs.75/- per quintal on different dates. Further allegation was that the stock register and cash memoes were not maintained and coal was sold in black market which is the violation of Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956 and Bihar Trade Articles Licences Unification Order, 1984. So it was alleged that the appellant and Motilal Sah are entitled to be prosecuted for committing offences under Section 7 Essential Commodities Act. The case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and trial proceeded against this appellant and one Motilal Sah who was present in the business premises of the appellant at the time of alleged raid. After trial, accused Motilal Sah was found not guilty and he was acquitted of the charge. The appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced, as stated above.

(3.) In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined three witnesses. P.W.1 is Vidhya Nand Jha, Supply Inspector who is the informant of the case. According to him, he along with District Supply Officer and Marketing Officer inspected the business premises of the appellant and found that the cash memoes were not properly maintained. He has proved some cash memoes, sale registers and statements ( Exts. 1,2,3,4 and 5). P.W.2 is Sushil Kumar Das, Marketing Officer. He has stated that he along with P.W.I inspected the shop of the appellant and found certain discrepancies. He also stated that some consumers stated before him that the coal was sold at the rate of Rs.120 to 125/- per quintal but the cash memoes were issued at the rate of Rs.75/- per quintal. In his cross- examination, this witness has stated that the statements of consumers were not recorded in his presence. P.W.3 Devendra Paswan is the Investigating Officer of this case who has proved formal F.I.R. as Ext.6.