MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. here in after to be called 'the Code against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, dated August 18, 1981 by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed his conviction under Rule 114(11), Defence of India Rules, 1971 (here in after to be called 'the Rules') read with clause (3) of the Rajasthan (Display of Prices and Stock of Essential Commodities) Order (hereinafter to be called 'Order') 1975 and sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of fine of Rs. 300/ - and also confiscation of 1200 kilograms of groundnut. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) DURING the year 1975, the accused -petitioner was carrying on the business on sale and purchase of groundnuts, oil etc. in the village Mahuvakhurd Tehsil Banera, District Bhilwara. On November 27, 1975 at 915 AM. Enforcement Inspector Mr. Chaturbhuj Hinonia (PW -1) Inspected his business premises and found the price and stock list blank. He prepared its copy, checked the stock and seized 1200 kilograms of groundnut. After completing the enquiry, a complaint was filed by him in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. The accused petitioner was summoned. After recording the statement of Mr. Chaturbhuj Hinonia PW 1 charge under Rule 114(11) of the Rules read with Clause (3) of the Order was framed. He was further cross -examined and the prosecution witness Gopal Raj (PW -2) only was further examined. In his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused stated that the list of price and stock contained the necessary entries. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. After hearing the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced him and confiscated the groundnut, as stated above. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed.

(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused -petitioner did not disclose in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that the inspection was done immediately after he opened the shop and this plea is only an after throught.