PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in criminal original case No. 17/75 vide judgment dated 7. 7. 79 found Pawan Kumar guilty of an offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months' and to pay a: fine of Rs. 300/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months'. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, Pawan Kumar went in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara. His appeal was dismissed after due hearing by the learned Sessions Judge on 4. 11. 1980. Aggrieved Pawan Kumar have come in revision to this Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that Pawan Kumar was granted a licence to run a fair price shop by Tehsildar, Ghatol for the period from 28. 12. 72 to 31,3. 1974 in pursuance of the Rajasthan Sugar Dealers Licencing Order, 1967 (hereinafter called the order), on the terms and conditions specified in licence Ex. P. 4. This licence inter-alia laid down condition No. 3 as follows: "3. The licence shall issue to every customer a correct receiptor invoice as the case may be giving his own name, address and licence number and the name, address the licence number (if any) of the customer the date of transaction, the quantity sold, the' price per quintal and the total amount charged and shall keep a duplicate of the same be available for inspection of demanded by the licensing authority or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf. " A special condition No. 3 was further specified as follows: "3. The licensee shall maintain true and correct account of the sugar received and sold by him under the allotment issued to him by the Collector. ".

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case Ex. P. 1 does mention deficit of 1 qtl. 6 k. g. 100 gms, of sugar but in fact there is no evidence on record to show that any weighment of sugar, was got done. It is submitted that Ram Charan had noted down the deficit only on the basis of counting of bags. It is stated in Ex P. l that 10 qtl. 31 k. g. 200 gms. of sugar was found at the godown. This much quantity of sugar would have taken a good deal of time in getting the weighment done. A proper weighing machine would have been required to make this weighment. If really weighment would have done, Ex P. 1 would have mentioned this fact. But since all this was not done Ram Charan vaguely mentioned that physical verification of the stock was made. He did not mention about the factum of any weighment in Ex. P. 1. As such any shortage in the stock of sugar was assumed merely on surmise and conjectures and the petitioner should not have been convicted and sentenced on such basis.