Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1059 (PAT)

Raj Kishore Sah v. State Of Bihar

2001-11-27

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2001
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the alleged date of occurrence the Officer-in-Charge along with S.I. Bhola Pd. Singh was on duty near Dheng Railway Station and got confidential information that some kerosene oil loaded on a tyre cart was being brought towards Bairgania for black-marketing the same in Nepal territory. It has been stated that the informant Bashishta Nr. Singh along with S.I. Bhola Pd. Singh and Choukidar Darbari Rai chased the aforesaid tyrecart and caught the same near Maniyari Chowk. On enquiry it transpired that 100 Ltrs. Kerosene oil kept in 4 jerricanes were being carried on the said tyre-cart for black-marketing the same in Nepal territory. The cart man told his name as Indradeo Sah. It has been stated that the Malik of the kerosene oil wrongly told his name as Mahesh Sah but actually his name was Raj Kishore Sah. On demand the accused persons did not show any licence or permit for carrying the aforesaid 100 Ltrs. of K. oil. The said tyre-cart along with 100 Ltrs. K. oil was seized in presence of two seizure list witnesses namely Shudistha Nr. Jha and Upendra Jha and a seizure list was prepared over which the above named witnesses put their signatures. It has been further stated that both the accused persons were arrested and were forwarded to the Court of Special Judge, Sitamarhi for taking legal action against them. On the own statement of Officer-in-Charge, Bashishta Nr. Singh formal FIR was registered. He started investigation of the case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. Accordingly cognizance was taken and ultimately the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellants pleaded not guilty. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether three witnesses, PW 1 is Shudishta Narain Jha. PW 2 is Upendra Jha. Both are seizure list witnesses and have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW 3 is Bashishta Nr. Singh, informant of the case. According to him, on the date of occurrence he was on duty near Dheng Rly. Station along with S.I. and Chaukidar. PW 2 is Upendra Jha. Both are seizure list witnesses and have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW 3 is Bashishta Nr. Singh, informant of the case. According to him, on the date of occurrence he was on duty near Dheng Rly. Station along with S.I. and Chaukidar. He got confidential information that some K. oil kept on tyre-cart was being carried towards Nepal for black- marketing the same on higher rate. According to him, they chased the accused persons and they were caught at Maniyari Chowk. They found 100 Ltrs. of K. oil in four jerricanes kept on tyre-cart. According to him, on enquiry the cart man told his name as Indradeo Sah. On demand no paper relating to K. oil was shown. As such, he seized four jerricanes of K. oil from the possession of the accused persons in presence of two independent witnesses and a seizure list was prepared. The seizure list witnesses also put their signatures on the same. According to him, on his own statement FIR was lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision in the case of Bijaya Kr. Agarwala V/s. State of Orissa, AIR 1996 SC 2531 , in which it has been held that simply carrying on goods in a vehicle is not storage of goods. In the present case also four jerricanes of kerosene oil were recovered from a tyre-cart which belonged to one Nago Sah and the tyre-cart was being driven by the appellant Indradeo Sah and the other appellant Raj Kishore Sah was also accompanying the tyre cart. It has been alleged by the prosecution that the appellant Raj Kishore Sah on interrogation disclosed that he had purchased the kerosene oil for selling it in the village. Certainly he was not a licensee and the prosecution could not prove that the same was being taken for illegal sale on higher rate. Even recovery of kerosene oil was not supported by independent witnesses, as per the provisions of Unification Order. Any person other than the dealer cannot possess/store kerosene oil more than 20 Ltrs. In this case kerosene oil being carried on the cart cannot be said to be stored by the appellants and they can not be said that they had contravened any of the provisions of the said order. Any person other than the dealer cannot possess/store kerosene oil more than 20 Ltrs. In this case kerosene oil being carried on the cart cannot be said to be stored by the appellants and they can not be said that they had contravened any of the provisions of the said order. Even the prosecution could not prove that the kerosene oil was recovered from the possession of the appellants. As such, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. In the result, this appeal is allowed.