JEETMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated March 21, 1979, whereby he upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 1000/ -and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Shri Jagdish Prasad Gaur, Enforcement Officer, filed a complaint against the petitioner and his brother Surajmal to this effect that both the petitioner and his brother Surajmal are the proprietors of M/s Bahadur General Store, Pratapgarh and they carry on the business of selling soap. On July 20, 1974 the Enforcement Officer inspected the shop (Bahadur General Store) and found that 23 'peties' of Ashok Brand Soap and 3 'peties' soap of Banswara Brand were in the possession of the petitioner and his brother. The price list and stock as contemplated under the Rajasthan (Display of Price and Stock of Essential Commodities) Order 1966, here in after referred to as 'the Order of 1966' were not displayed by the dealer and it is further alleged that on checking the bill book, the names and addresses of the purchasers were not mentioned. The petitioner was, therefore, held, to have contravened Clauses (3) and 5(iii) of the Order of 1966. On receipt of the complaint a case was registered against the petitioner and one, i.e., his brother Surajmal. Charges were framed against both the accused persons. Both the accused denied the charge and claimed the trial. After recording the prosecution evidence and the statements of the accused persons and hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, found the petitioner guilty under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and passed the aforesaid sentence.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to establish that the list of price and the stock were not displayed at or near the business premises. The witnesses produced by the prosecution did not support the prosecution case. Price list and stock were displayed by the petitioner vide Ex. P 2, copy of which was given to the Enforcement Officer. The trial court erred in rejecting this evidence.