Judgment 1. JUDGMENT :- The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 8th May, 1995, passed in G.R. Case No. 3621/86 by the Special Judge E.C. Act, Dhanbad, whereby both the accused persons have been convicted under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months each. 2 In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 20-11-1986 the informant Randhir Kumar Verma, a Supply Officer along with Senior Supply Officer, Sitaram Tiwary, made a surprise check of the business premises of Khokhan Chandra Singh, who is a licence holder of coal. The surprise check was conducted under the supervision of Sub-divisional Officer, Dhanbad. During the surprise check Khokhon Chandra Singh was not present in the coal depot premises and Sri Hari Charan Prasad was present there and had produced the licence, Chalan of coal delivery etc. According to Haricharan Prasad, he was partner with Khokhan Chandra Singh in the business of coal. 3. On the next day accused Khokhon Chandra Singh was available before the informant. According to Khokhan Chandra Singh, Hari Charan Prasad had no right in the business premises and house. Khokhan Chandra Singh had told the informant that he had no experience of coal business and he had authorised one Tapan Kr. Modak for taking delivery of coal from the colliery. It has been alleged that coal business is carried by Hari Charan Prasad on the licence which is in the name of Khokhan Chandra Singh. At the time of checking one truck of coking coal was found at the place of business. It has also been alleged that the boundary of the business premises was different to that mentioned in the licence. The stock register of coal, cash memo etc. were not produced before the informant. There was no board at the business premises regarding Government coal depot and daily stock and price were not shown in the business premises on any board. It has been alleged that Khokhan Chandra Singh had obtained the licence for coal by giving false boundary etc. of the land. According to the prosecution, the accused persons have violated the provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 and Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stock) Order, 1977. 4. After investigation police submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. of the land. According to the prosecution, the accused persons have violated the provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 and Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stock) Order, 1977. 4. After investigation police submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. The learned Special Judge E.C. Act, took cognizance of the case and proceeded with the trial of the case. 5. Only one witness has been examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 is Randhir Kumar Verma informant of this case. According to him, on 20-11-1996 he was Block Supply Officer in Baliapur Block. On that day he had gone to check the coal depot of Khokhan Chandra Singh along with Ajay Kumar Varma, Sub-divisional Officer. Dhanbad and Sita Ram Tiwary, Marketing Officer. Jharla and at the time of inspection Hari Charan Prasad was there who said that he was partner in the depot. He (P.W. 1) has said that Hari Charan Prasad had not given stock register, cash memo to him on demand. He has further said that there was no board of display of price list and stock in the depot. Further, according to him, the depot which they had inspected was not at the place which was given in the licence, and the coal was kept in the depot and the depot was in running condition. He has said that he obtained the sanction of S.D.O. Dhanbad for prosecution and thereafter he instituted a case at the police station. Ext.1 is his written report and Ext. 2 is the sanction order of S.D.D. Dhanbad. No paper has been filed on behalf of the prosecution to show that the place of coal depot was different from that mentioned in the licence. In the absence of any paper it cannot be inferred that the coal depot was at a different place than that mentioned in the licence of the licence holder. In his examination under S. 313, Cr. P.C. accused Khokhan Chandra Singh has admitted that the stock of the coal and its rate were not displayed on the board in his coal depot. Accused Khonkhan Chandra Singh has also admitted in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P.C. that on 20-11-86 the S.D.O., and other Officers had raided his coal depot. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 to disbelieve his evidence. Accused Khonkhan Chandra Singh has also admitted in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P.C. that on 20-11-86 the S.D.O., and other Officers had raided his coal depot. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 to disbelieve his evidence. The above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that both the accused appellants have committed the offence punishable under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. There is no merit in this criminal appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Both the accused appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the Court of learned Special Judge E.C. Act, Dhanbad, forthwith to serve out their sentences. The learned Special Judge, Dhanbad, will also take all necessary steps in this regard. Appeal dismissed.