KAMAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th of December, 1986 whereby the Trial Court convicted the accused appellant (Kamal Kishore) for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955'), and sentenced him to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.100/-; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. The prosecution case is that the accused appelant being owner of Maheshwari Pustak Bhandar, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, was checked/inspected by the Enforcement Inspector on 25th of August, 1984 at about 11.00 a.m. and during the course of checking, it was found that the appellant did not exhibit the price of the Nationalized Test Books as well as the stock. The two lists did not show stock and price of the exercise books. Further, the lists were not in the prescribed form and there were no stock and sale registers. The appellant, therefore, was charged for violating the mandate of Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955 and for violating Close 15 of the Rajasthan Trace Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order of 1980').

(2.) ON denial of the charges, the appellant was put to trial and the prosecution in order to prove the case examined 9 witnesses in support thereof. Certain documents were also brought on record to substantiate the charge against the accused appellant. In defence, the accused appellant produced two witnesses being Raja Ram (DW-1) and Vinod Kumar (DW-2). Vijendra Kumar (PW-3) in his deposition before the Trial Court stated that he conducted the inspection of the shop of the accused appellant at 11.00 a.m. and found two prise lists exhibited (Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6), which were not in the prescribed form. The prise lists also did not contain the details of the exercise books whereas 393 exercise books were found in the stock. Inspection memo (Ex.P-2) was prepared, which has been signed by the accused appellant and the Enforcement Officer (PW-3).

(3.) THE learned counsel for the accused appellant assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 15th of December, 1986 submitted that the provisions of Clause-15 of the Order of 1980 were not attracted so far as the exercise books under the brand 'chetak' are concerned and further, out of the total stock of 393 exercise books, the exercise books of 'chetak' brand were only 53 and rests of the exercise books were of different brand. It was the case of the accused appellant that the paper for other exercise books was not distributed on control rate or the price was regulated by some other law. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the accused appellant stressed that at best, even if the entire prosecution case was believed, it was only a technical offence and there was no intention on the part of the accused appellant to commit the offence. The learned counsel for the accused appellant emphatically submitted that keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the offence being technical in nature as well as the fact that the accused appellant is first offender and the incident dates back to the year 1984 i.e., almost 3 decades, lenient view deserves to be adopted and the accused appellant deserves to be dealt with under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code. Attention of the Court was invited to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in case of Harivallabha and another Versus State of M.P.; (2005) 10 SCC 330.