Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 778 (RAJ)

Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2001-05-04

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - The above named accused-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 2.2.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge. Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 2/95 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EC Act'), but instead of sentencing him for the said offence, he granted him the benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows : P.W.5 Veersen Mudgal, Enforcement Inspector, District Supply Office, Bikaner lodged a written complaint Ex.D.3 with the Police Station, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner on 17.10.1994 stating inter-alia that accused appellant Mukesh Kumar was authorised and license holder to distribute levy sugar in ward No. 33. Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner. It was further stated in the said complaint that consumers of that area made a complaint with the District Supply Officer. Bikaner (P.W.1 Ranveer Singh) and upon this, P.W. 1 Ranveer Singh forwarded that complaint to P.W.4 Smt. Asha Choudhary and P.W.4 Smt.Asha Choudhary, after verifying the facts made a complaint Ex.P. I before P.W. 1 Ranveer Singh stating that for the month of April, 1994. 6 quinttal sugar and for the month of May, 1994. 6 quinttal sugar were received by the accused appellant on 5.9.1994 and 12.9.1994 respectively for distribution amongst the consumers, but the same was not distributed by him and his shop was found closed and that sugar was kept by him at his residence. Thereafter, P.W. 1 Ranveer Singh further entrusted the enquiry to P.W.3 Satyanarain Gaur. It was further stated in the complaint Ex.D.3 that thereafter, on 14.10.1994, another complaint was received from the consumers of that area and this time, enquiry was handed over to P.W.6 Narayan Lal by P.W. 1 Ranveer Singh and he also came to the same conclusion and the result of the enquiry was that accused appellant received 12 quinttal sugar, which he did not distribute amongst the consumers and his fair piece shop was found closed and he kept that sugar at his residence. Thus, by doing so, accused appellant contravened clauses 6 and 20 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Order of 1976') and further conditions No. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 17(c) of the License, which was issued to him and thus, he has committed the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act. On this report, police registered the case for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act and started investigation. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellant for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act in the Court. The learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner framed charge against the accused appellant for contravention of clauses 6 and 20 of the Order of 1976 and conditions No. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 17(C) of the License and thus by doing so, he has committed the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Therefore, statement of the accused appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, where he has stated that house in which he was running the fair price shop was closed by putting lock by the landlord and he informed about this to P.W.1 Ranveer Singh, District Supply Officer and upon this, P.W.1 Ranveer Singh told him that he could keep the sugar at his house and thus, by doing so, he has committed no offence. After conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge. Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner through his judgment and order dated 2.2.1999 came to the conclusion that the only charge proved against the accused appellant was that he kept the sugar at his house and not at the fair price shop and by doing so, the accused appellant violated the condition No. 1 of the License and thus, committed offence under section 30 of the EC Act, but instead of sentencing him for the said offence, he released him on probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 2.2.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. In this appeal, only one submission has been raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that since the fair price shop was locked by the landlord, therefore, he had no alternative, but to keep the sugar at his house and there was no bad intention on the part of the accused appellant to keep the sugar at his house as it was not the case of tile prosecution that he black-marketed the sugar. In these circumstances, violation of condition No. 1 of the License should not be held to be proved. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge. Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 6. To appreciate the above contentions, the evidence of the present case to be looked into. 7. So far as District Supply Officer, Bikaner. P.W. 1 Ranveer Singh is concerned, he has simply stated that he received the report Ex.P. I from P.W.4 Smt. Asha Choudhary and another report Ex.P.2 from P.W.3 Satyanarain Gaur. However, he did not make any enquiry in this matter. 8. P.W. 2 Virendra Kumar Goyal has been declared hostile. 9. P.W. 3 Satyanarain Gaur is another witness for prosecution and he was Enforcement Inspector on 19.9.1994 and he also made enquiry in respect of the complaint made against the accused appellant. He has admitted that accused appellant was a patient of TB and he was not found on the fair price shop and he was told by the wife of the accused appellant that since dispute with regard to shop in question was going on with the landlord, therefore, shop was locked and at that time, P.W. 1 Ranveer Singh, District Supply Officer was also present. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 3 Satyanarain Gaur has further admitted in cross-examination that P.W. 1 Ranveer Singh told him that though accused appellant was his neighbour, but was going against him and he should be set right and he further told him that report against the accused appellant should be made. From this statement, it appears that P.W.1 Ranveer Singh was very much prejudiced with the accused appellant. 10. P.W. 4 Smt. Asha Choudhary is another Enforcement Inspector, who made report Ex.P. I before P.W. 1 Ranveer Singh and she has also admitted in cross examination that she was told by the wife of the accused appellant that landlord of the shop had locked the shop and, therefore, sugar was being kept at house. From this statement also, the case and suggestion of the accused appellant is coming forward. 11. Another witness is P.W.5 Veersen Mudgal, who was also Enforcement Inspector and he has also admitted in cross-examination that the shop was closed and he was told by the wife of the accused appellant that the landlord has put lock on the shop. 12. Similar is the statement of P.W. 6 Narain Lal. 13. From perusing the above evidence, it can easily be inferred that shifting of sugar by the accused appellant from fair price shop to his residence was a compelling necessity as he had no other alternative because the shop in question was closed by the landlord by putting lock. Not only this, the case of the accused appellant that he informed orally about this to P.W.1 Ranveer Singh appears to be reasonable one from the statement of P.W.3 Satyanarain Gaur and further, it appears that P.W.1 Ranveer Singh was very much prejudiced with the accused appellant. In these circumstances, if accused appellant has kept the sugar at his residence, no case of breach of condition No. of the License can be held to be proved against the accused appellant, especially when there is no evidence of the consumers, which shows that sugar was not being distributed by the accused appellant. 14. In these circumstances, if accused appellant has kept the sugar at his residence, no case of breach of condition No. of the License can be held to be proved against the accused appellant, especially when there is no evidence of the consumers, which shows that sugar was not being distributed by the accused appellant. 14. For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellant for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act and thus, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner are liable to be set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act.Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused appellant Mukesh Kumar is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 2.2.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner are set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act.Appeal allowed. *******