GOBIND RAM JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Singhbhum has been heard along with the criminal revision application filed by the accused persons, three in number, who had been convicted by the trying Munsif-Magistrate under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each, or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each.

(2.) The prosecution case, as presented in Court, was that, at. about 7-30 p.m. on the 5th December, 1966, a Supply Inspector named Shri Ramchandra Ram (P.W. 1) went to the shop of the petitioners situated in Chakradharpur market and demanded being shown the stock register, the sale register etc. to enable him to hold inspection of the stock of food-grains existing in the petitioners, shop. The petitioners, however, refused to afford the necessary facilities to the Supply Inspector (P.W. 1), and, as a matter of fact, went away elsewhere after locking up the firm. Thereafter, the Supply Inspector contacted the Chakradharpur police and, after the arrival of the police, the petitioners opened their shop and handed over the stock register and the cash memos to the Supply Inspector. The Supply Inspector took charge of these documents and sealed the shop as, by then, the night had sufficiently advanced. On the following day, the Supply Inspector re-visited the shop, along with Shri Tej Pratap Bhagat (P.W. 2), who was the Assistant District Supply Officer, and checked up the stock of foodgrains in the petitioners' shop. As a result of the weighing, it was found that, with reference to the entries in the stock register etc., (here was an excess stock of rice in the petitioners' shop to the extent of 33.800 Kg. whereas the stock was found short in respect of gramdal by 02.500 Kg., in respect of grain by 62.900 Kg. and in respect of Khesari dal by 19.400 Kg. Accordingly, the Supply Inspector (P.W. 1) submitted a report (Ext. 1) to the Sub-divisional Magistrate stating the relevant facts. On the basis of. the said prosecution report, which bore the date "22-12-66", the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate of Chaibassa took cognizance by his order . dated the 2nd January, 1967 of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities , Act, Thereafter, all the three petitioners were put on trial before a Munsif-Magistrate exercising first class powers at Chaibassa.

(3.) The defence put forward by the petitioners was that the accusation made against them was false and that there was really no discrepancy in the stock position, as alleged on behalf of the prosecution. In regard to the alleged excess of stock of rice, the defence case was that it had been left behind in the petitioners' gaddi by one Durga Charan Pradhan of Pansua and, therefore, it did not belong to the petitioners' shop. With respect to the alleged shortage of the two kinds of Dal and of gram, the defence case was that those varieties of foodgrains had been forwarded to a grinding mill for being grinded on account of the petitioners' shop; but no entries to this effect had been made as by the time that the books of the shop were taken charge of by the authorities, all the entries in respect of the day's transaction had not been entered in the relevant books.