STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. J NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint (Ex. P.6) was filed by the Enforcement Inspector with the allegation that at the time of inspection of the shop of Mis J. Nagpal & Company, certain tyres and tubes were found in the stock, but neither the stock position nor the prices of the saleable goods had been displayed by the dealer at the shop. The complaint was made against the firm M/s J. Nagpal & Company Amer Road, Jaipur and also its proprietor, Mr. Kesnwan and Nagpal and the proprietor's son, ML Rajendra Kumar Nagpal At the time of inspection by the Enforcement Inspector, it was Shri Rajendra Kumar, who was found at the shop because his father, who was the proprietor of the business, was away to Sri. Ganganager due to illness of his mother. 22 tyres of different sizes and 6 tubes were found in stock and these were taken into possession by the Enforcement Inspector under Seizure Memo (Ex. P.2) because the stock had not been displayed nor the prices had been shown on the notice board as required under the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licencing and Control) Order 1980.

(2.) The goods, so seized, were given on Supurdgi to Shri Yogesh Kumar (PW. 2) under Ex. P.3. Copies of the application for the grant of licence, filed by the dealer (Ex. P.5) arid the licence granted in respect of Patrolium Products (Ex. P.4), were also filed. During trial, 3 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused persons also produced 3 witnesses in defence, but the Trial Judge acquitted the 3 accused of the charge u/s 317 of the E.C Act on the ground that no independent and respectable inhabitant had been called by the Enforcement Inspector at the time of inspection and seizure of goods. It was also observed that the proprietor of the firm was not present at the shop and no sale had been effected on the date of inspection (114/1983). Certain bills had been issued by the dealer in respect of sales, but no bill had been issued on the date of inspection. It was also held by the Trial Judge that the dealer had closed his books of account on 31st of March, 1983 and for that reason, no business' transactions had been effected on 1/4/1983, the date of inspection.

(3.) The order of acquittal has been challenged with the plea that there was no illegality even if two witnesses of the locality were not called by the Enforcement Inspector at the time of inspection and seizure. It was, at the most, an irregularity. It is argued on behalf of the State that the requirement of law that the respectable1nd independent witnesses should normally be called, was only a directory provision and not a mandatory requirement. It has also been pointed out that the absence of proprietor at the time of inspection cannot help the accused-dealer because when the shop was open and business was being done by the son of the proprietor, it made no difference that the proprietor was away, to Sri Ganganagar.