ANIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant Anil Kumar Singh has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 24.1.2001 passed by Sri S.N. Singh, Special Judge, Gumla in G.R. Case No. 12 of 1987, whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted under section 7(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 3(2)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that on 21st September, 1985 the informant ASI Crime Investigation Department (Food), Gumla was sitting in front of the house of one Kapildeo Goswami when he saw a Rickshaw moving towards Gumla carrying one bag of wheat. The informant stopped the Rickshaw puller Sakila Uraon and asked from where this wheat was being carried. According to the informant the Rickshaw Puller, P.W. 4 informed him that he was carrying wheat from the shop of the appellant to deliver it at the shop of Lakshman Sahu. As per informant, he immediately seized the wheat and recorded the statement of Sakila Uraon and went to the shop of the appellant to verify it. He further stated that from verification of the shop of the appellant he found 155 kg of wheat sold but stock register and cash memo were not handed over to him for verification on the grounds that it is not possible without the directions of Supply Officer. The informant further reported the matter to SDO, Gumla to ask him to inform the Supply Officer, however matter could not be proceeded till next morning. The shop of the appellant was again visited by the informant in the next morning in presence of the witnesses and he found 3 kgs of wheat less than the stock register. It is also alleged that 230 kg wheat was shown to be distributed. Ultimately a written report was lodged on 26.9.1985 alleging therein that the appellant has committed offences under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and further putting up obstruction in performance of official duties.

(3.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the prosecution version is improbable and not supported by any material evidence on record. It is also asserted that in spite of the specific denial of P.W. 4 Sakila Uraon, the Rickshaw Puller that the wheat seized by the informant was not given to him by the appellant, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant. It is also submitted that in absence of the informant and the I.O. of the case the learned trial court should have acquitted the appellant. According to this memo of appeal unless the wheat seized by the informant was proved to have been delivered by the appellant for black marketing the conviction cannot be sustained.