Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 664 (PAT)

Radha Kant Mishra v. State of Bihar

2000-05-02

MANOHAR LAL VISA

body2000
JUDGMENT : M.L. VISA, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.7.1989 passed by the Special Judge, Gopalganj, in Kuchaikote P6 Case No. 127/84 (Trial No. 12/88) under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (E.C. Act) convicting arid sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 1.9.1984 the informant Harish Chandra Prasad (PW1) inspected the fair price shop of appellant who at the relevant time was dealer of sugar. At the time of inspection neither the appellant nor anybody else was present in the shop. The informant did not find any stock of sugar or any stock register in the shop. Thereafter there was strike of non gazetted employees. On 29.9.84 the brother of appellant went to the office of informant for taking allotment of sugar for the month of September, 1984. He had brought stock register also and he produced the same before the informant. The informant seized the stock register. No allotment of sugar for the month of September, 1984 was given. The informant inspected the shop of appellant twice after 12.10.84 and he received complaint from consumers that they were not provided with their quota of sugar for the month of August, 1984. The informant inspected the ration cards of those persons and found that there was no entry in those ration cards for supply of sugar. The informant further came to know that appellant had already lifted 7 quintals of sugar for the month of August, 1984 from the godown of Food Corporation of India for distributing the same amongst the card holders but in fact he had not distributed sugar to the consumers. The informant lodged a case with the police and the police after investigation submitted chargesheet under section 7 of the E.C. Act against the appellant. 3. The case of the appellant before the court below was that he was not given allotment of any sugar for the month of August. 1984 and he had not lifted the sugar from the godown of Food Corporation of India. After trial the court below found the appellant guilty under section 7 of the E.C. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months. 4. Altogether three witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution. Harish Chandra Prasad (PW 1) is the informant. After trial the court below found the appellant guilty under section 7 of the E.C. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months. 4. Altogether three witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution. Harish Chandra Prasad (PW 1) is the informant. Rishikesh Prasad Srivastava (PW2) was posted as Circle Officer at the relevant time. Tribhuwan Prasad Sinha (PW 3) is the I.O. PW 2 has said that he had received written complaint against the appellant from a number of consumers and he then authorised the informant to enquire into the matter and when PW1 after enquiry submitted report the same was forwarded to the police. He was further stated that dealers were being given allotment order in the form of slip on the basis of which they used to lift sugar from the godown of Food Corporation of India and in this process the appellant was given allotment order for lifting seven quintals of sugar for the month of August, 1984 and he later on learnt that on the basis of that allotment order the appellant had already withdrawn sugar from the godown but he did not take the sugar to his shop. PW 1, the informant has stated that he inspected the shop of appellant but at the time of inspecting appellant was not found present in his shop and from the records of Anchal office he came to know that appellant was given allotment order of sugar for the month of August, 1984 and from the verification of records of godown of Food Corporation of India he came to know that seven quintals of sugar had been withdrawn by the appellant. He has further stated that sugar lifted by the appellant for the month of August. 1994 had not been either entered in stock register or distributed amongst the consumers and he verified ration cards of consumers, recorded their statements and hereafter handed-over the ration cards and he statements to the police. Neither any ration card nor written complaint of any consumer has been produced. The prosecution has also not produced any document to show that appellant was given allotment order for sugar for the month of August, 1984. It has also not produced any document to show that appellant lifted sugar from the godown of Food Corporation of India. Neither any ration card nor written complaint of any consumer has been produced. The prosecution has also not produced any document to show that appellant was given allotment order for sugar for the month of August, 1984. It has also not produced any document to show that appellant lifted sugar from the godown of Food Corporation of India. PW 3, who is 1.0., in his evidence has clearly stated that he did not make any verification from the office of Food Corporation of India about the lifting of sugar by the appellant. The court below in its judgment has observed that investigation of the case was not properly conducted and ration cards and stock register have not been produced by the prosecution without any explanation. It was further observed that "No paper has been proved in court to show that the accused had taken sugar from the godown of Food Corporation of India on 31.8.84." There is no explanation on behalf of prosecution as to why these documents which are in possession of prosecution have not been produced before the court." In spite of these observations the court below has found the appellant guilty and has convicted and sentenced him as stated above. I further find that in para 9 of judgment the court below has introduced a new case by observing that there are two possibilities in the case-the accused might have taken sugar from the F.C.I. godown and sold it in black market or he might have sold the allotment order in black market to somebody else who might have lifted sugar in place of appellant. It is nowhere the case of prosecution that appellant sold the allotment order. I, therefore, find that this observation of the court below is without any basis. In absence of any proof even on the point that appellant was given any allotment order of sugar for the month of August. 1984 and the appellant in fact lifted sugar from the godown, no case is made out against the appellant. 5. In the result this appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted and the judgment and order of court below is set aside. The appellant who is on bail is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.