STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHAMSHER ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal arises on leave granted by this Court on February 12, 1979 against the judgment dated July 31, 1978 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner acquitting the appellant of tee offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with the Sugar Control Order, 1966.

(2.) The case is more than 15 years old. On the complaint of the villagers of village Rotolai that the respondent was committing irregularities in the matter of distribution of sugar, his shop was inspected by the Enforcement Inspector on October 22, 1972. The Enforcement Inspector found certain irregularities. A challan was filed by the State against the accused in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner where he was tried for the above offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He was also charged under sections 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused of all the charges.

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has recorded a finding that the prosecution led no evidence to prove that the accused supplied sugar to anyone less in quantity or at a price higher than the controlled one. No evidence was led to prove the offence under section 465 or 467, I.P.C. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State. He has not been able to point out any evidence in support of the prosecution case to establish that the accused supplied sugar to anyone lesser in quantity or at a price higher than the controlled price. The prosecution case that the accused had sugar in excess of the quantity shown in the stock register was also not proved, inasmuch as, the prosecution did not lead any evidence of actual weighing of the sugar by the Enforcement Inspector. The matter is as old as 15 years. The Inspector checked the shop as back as October 22, 1972. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused for want of evidence and has held that the charge under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sections 465 and 467, I.P.C. have not been established against the accused.