Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1473 (AP)

DASARI TIRUPATHI REDDY v. State

2002-12-17

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2002
G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S. T. C. No. 6 of 1994 on the file of the Special Judge for Cases under the Essential Commodities Act (Sessions Judge), Karimnagar against the conviction for the offence under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months imposed by the said Court by judgment dated 19-2-1997. ( 2 ) THE story of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellant is briefly as follows: ( 3 ) THE appellant-accused was a Fair Price Shop dealer of Kanukulagidda Village, karimnagar District. He was selling rice, sugar and other essential commodities to the ration cardholders. He was supposed to maintain proper accounts and show the correct stock of the commodities in his shop. On 21-9-1993 at about 1. 00 p. m. one kothuri Agaiah purchased one quintal of rice from the accused unauthorisedly and he was caught red-handed by the villagers and the rice was kept in the Gram Panchayat office. On a complaint made by the villagers, the Inspector of Police, VCCS, karimnagar surprised the shop of the accused on 22-9-1993 in the presence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and noticed excess stock of 1. 47 quintals of rice, shortage of 18 kgs. of sugar, improper maintenance of accounts, non-issuing of bills to the customers, possessing 23 ration cards of the villagers and unauthorized selling of rice of one quintal to a private person by name K. Agaiah. The Inspector, who was examined as P. W. 10, further noticed that the transactions of 19-9-1993 to 22-9-1993 were not entered in the registers resulting in variation in the ground balance of the stocks and it also revealed that the accused was diverting the public distribution system stocks to the black market. After conducting a detailed investigation, P. W. 10 laid a charge sheet against the accused. ( 4 ) THE lower Court took cognizance of the offences referred above and took up the matter for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined p. Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. Pl to P37. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. ( 4 ) THE lower Court took cognizance of the offences referred above and took up the matter for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined p. Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. Pl to P37. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. After considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the prosecution, the lower Court came to a conclusion that the accused was guilty for the offence under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, accordingly, convicted him and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The accused being aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower Court, preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the essential Commodities Act, 1955 ? ( 6 ) THE prosecution in order to prove its case examined P. W. 1, a Revenue inspector and P. Ws. 2 and 3, the villagers, who were said to be the mediators for the inspection of the Fair Price Shop of the accused and signatories to Panchanama-Ex- p1 to prove the irregularities committed by the accused. P. Ws. 2 and 3 being the villagers and independent witnesses as usual turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P. Ws. 4 to 9 whose ration cards were available with the accused were also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. P. W. 10 gave a detailed description of the events took place at the fair Price Shop of the accused and proved the contents of Ex. P1 listing out the irregularities mentioned above. P. W. I, a revenue Inspector, who is also one of the panchas for Ex. P1-Panchanama, corroborated with the evidence of P. W. 10 in all respects. The accused did not come forward with any explanation either in the form of suggestions to P. Ws. 1 and 10 or by way of adducing oral or documentary evidence to falsify the allegations made by the prosecution. P1-Panchanama, corroborated with the evidence of P. W. 10 in all respects. The accused did not come forward with any explanation either in the form of suggestions to P. Ws. 1 and 10 or by way of adducing oral or documentary evidence to falsify the allegations made by the prosecution. P. W. 1 is not a subordinate of P. W. 10 and he is not an official of the department of P. W. 10. There is no necessity for him to dance to the tunes of P. W. 10 and he narrated as to what had happened at the time of the inspection of the shop of the accused by P. W. 10. In the light of the details given by P. W. 10 with reference to various exhibits and the corroborated evidence of P. W. 1. , the learned special Judge rightly came to a conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence as indicated above. ( 7 ) AFTER going through the evidence, both oral and documentary and the judgment of the Trial Court, I do not find any force in the grounds of appeal to interfere. The conviction given by the Special Judge against the accused is accordingly confirmed. ( 8 ) REGARDING the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed by the learned Special Judge, the learned Counsel for the appellant - Sri K. Sitaram - submitted that since the variation in the stock is not much, a lenient view may be taken by reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant-accused to the minimum period of three months prescribed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In support o his request, the learned Counsel relied on a judgment in Bhagaban Sahu v. State, 1989 Excise and Food Adulteration reports 100, wherein a single Judge of the orissa High Court released the accused on probation on the ground that the accused was a dealer in a remote village not knowing the requirements of law and not a previous convict. He also relied on another judgment in Madhusudan v. State of Orissa, 1989 excise and Food Adulteration Reports 222, wherein a single Judge of the Orissa High court released the accused on probation by invoking the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that he was not a previous offender and he was only 21 years old as on the date of offence. ( 9 ) IN Bhagaban Sahu s case (supra), the inspecting authority noticed variations of stock in Amul Spray, a baby food and non- display of opening stock and retail selling price and in Madhusudan s case (supra), the vigilance authorities noticed kerosene oil in excess of 5 litres. But, in the case on hand, the accused was about 54 years old by the date of offence. He was not only indulging in black marketing the rice, but also securing the ration cards of the villagers for his illegal activity of diverting the rice and other essential commodities. The awareness among the villagers made the vigilance authorities to surprise the shop of the accused and unearth the illegalities that were committed by him. The villagers seizing one quintal of rice while that was transported from the Fair price Shop by a private person itself is an indication that the accused was a dare devil indulging in this type of activities unmindful of the regulations and public confidence. In the light of the above circumstances, I am of the view that the accused do not deserve any leniency in the matter and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. ( 10 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge for Cases under the Essential Commodities act (Sessions Judge), Karimnagar in STC no. 6 of l994.