FATEHLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON January 7, 1974 Balu (P.W. 1) went to Pannalal, Agriculture Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Asind and asked him to supply urea fertilizer. Pannalal showed his inability for want of stock, at which Balu in a. taunting language said that it was available in the market at black market rates, which made Pannalal to give him a hundred rupee currency note initialled by him. He asked Balu to purchase urea fertilizer available from the market and report back to him Balu in the company of Magna went to the accused -petitioner Fatehlal, who offered to sell fertilizer at the rate of Rs. 78/ - per 'katta'. The real to purchase seven 'kattas' of fertilizer at the rate of Rs. 78/ - each was settled. Balu paid a currency note of Rs. 100/ -to the accused, took delivery of one 'katta', assuring him that he would return to have the remaining 'kattas' when he would pay the balance. Thereafter Balu reported it to Pannalal. First information report Ex P. 1 regarding this transaction was lodged at the Police Station, Asind It bears the signatures of Balu, Pannalal and Magna. The Police after registering the case searched the house of the accused, recovered eight 'kattas' full of urea fertilizer and four empty bags of urea fertilizer. The marked currency note was also recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner. After usual investigation the Police submitted a challan against the accused under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act in Court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The statements of Balu and Magna corroborated by the first information report, recovery of the initialled currency note and the statement of Pannalal convinced the learned Magistrate that the accused and offered for sale seven 'kattas' of fertilizer at a price exceeding the maximum price fixed under Clause (3) by the Central Government. He further held that the accused sold one 'katta' of fertilizer to Balu at the rate of Rs. 78/ - per katta', and the accused did not possess a certificate of registration required under Rule 5 of the Fertilizer Control Order. 1957. On the basis of the above findings the learned Magistrate held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to three months' simple imprisonment and a. fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of the payment of which to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated July 30, 1976 the accused went in appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge after reappraisal of the evidence, affirmed the findings arrived at by the trial court and came to the conclusion that the accused was a dealer, who had no certificate of registration and he offered for sale and sold urea fertilizer at a rate higher than that fixed i.e. at the rate of Rs. 78/ - per 'katta' whereas the rate fixed was Rs. 55.13 paisa per 'katta'. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court were upheld. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) THE next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the first information report the averment is only regarding making an offer to sell urea fertilizer and not regarding the actual sale of one 'katta' of urea. As such prosecution case is false. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned Counsel. No doubt it would have been much better if the details would have been mentioned in the first information report, but the first information report is not the last word of the prosecution. The main purpose of the first information report is to move the criminal law in motion. Good and reliable evidence led in the case and relied upon by the two courts after careful scrutiny cannot be discarded simply because the first information report is not a detailed one or has not been as artistically drafted as the learned Counsel wished it to be.