SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.06.1994 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 81/1992 whereby the learned Appellate Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused -petitioner against the judgment and order dated 31.08.1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 24/1983; and, while affirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, altered the sentence awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to that of rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE accusation in this case had been directed against the petitioner Subhash Chandra and one Niranjan Singh, said to be related with the firm Garg Fertilizer Company, Jawahar Market, Sriganganagar. It was alleged that on 19.01.1979 Shyam Sunder Goswami, Enforcement Officer carried out inspection at the business premises of the said firm Garg Fertilizer Company and found that there were 45 bags of manure available in the shop allegedly purchased from one Darshan Singh who had purchased about 130 bags of manure from the godown of Kisan Co -operative Marketing Society. It was also alleged that 55 bags were sold by the firm to the customers without issuing bills and without even obtaining bills of purchase from Darshan Singh. It was alleged that the goods in question were not shown in the stock register either nor the firm had displayed the price and the stock position. The allegations were essentially of violation of the requirements of Rajasthan Essential Commodities (Stock and Price) Order, 1977. Upon filing of the complaint and after the statement of PW -1 Shyam Sunder Goswami, Enforcement Officer, charges were framed against the petitioner and Niranjan Singh and after trial, while Niranjan Singh was acquitted, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the finding of the learned Trial Court but reduced the sentence as noticed hereinbefore.

(3.) HAVING given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions and having examined the record, so far the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, this Court is unable to find any material illegality or irregularity in the orders as passed by the learned Magistrate and as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge nor could the trial be said to have vitiated nor any prejudice has been shown.