DHURUB NATH CHAUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.3.1993 passed by Sri P.K. Sinha, Special Judge, under the Essential Commodities Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Sariya P.S. Case No. 158 of 1988 whereby the appellant was found guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. A prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was launched against the appellant on the inspection of the Block Supply Officer along with other officials of Supply Department in premises of the appellant on 1.10.1988. Page 0912 THE matter was reported and prosecution report was lodged by the Block Supply Officer alleging therein that the at the time of inspection shop was found not opened on query the younger brother of the appellant disclosed the appellant had gone out and thereafter he opened the shop for inspection. No stock was made available. THE appellant's brother expressed ignorance about the stock register or the papers, hence the prosecution was launched. THE matter was investigated and after investigation the charge sheet was submitted and trial proceeded.

(2.) DURING trial the prosecution examined six witnesses in support of prosecution case. Two defence witnesses were also examined. The court below vide its judgment hold that no violation of display order 1997 would be proved because the prosecution has failed to produce the order of competent authority which is required under Clause 6 of the Display order. The Special Judge also found no evidence regarding charging of enhanced price from the customers. Though the appellant denied all the allegations and all the facts but the question of law has been raised here and it has been submitted that the prosecution of the appellant is in violation of Section 326(3) of the Cr.P.C. Section 326(3) of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced below: Nothing in this section applies to summary trials or to cases in which proceedings have been stayed under Section 322 or in which proceedings have been submitted to a superior Magistrate under Section 325.

(3.) IN the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds.