Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 502 (PAT)

Lokman v. State Of Bihar

2002-04-16

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2002
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case, as disclosed by the informant, is that on 3.6.63 he was informed by one IIliyas of village Palasi that the appellant was carrying 15 bags of Govt. cement on a buffalo cart and taking it to West Bengal. On such information the informant went to the place of occurrence and saw a buffalo cart lodged with cement and about 30 to 40 persons were preventing the cart for being taken to West Bengal. He with the help of llliyas (P.W. 2), Md. Sayeed, Md. Garua and Md. Aklu brought the cart of the police station. On query he learnt that the cement was issued to appellant who was contractor for construction of drainage work for village Palasi and the said cement was taken to West Bengal for selling it with the help of his labourers namely Atan and Mastan. On the Fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 3) a case was registered under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. Accordingly cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined altogether six witnesses. P.W. 1 is Pran Ballabh Sahay, a formal witness. P.W. 2 is Md. Illiyas, P.W. 3 is Md. Sayeed who has been declared hostile. P.W. 4 is Md. Gorua. P.W. 5 is Md. Aklu. He has also been declared hostile and P.W. 6 is Devendra Prasad Singh, I.O. of this case. 4. P.W. 2, Md. Illiyas has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, he informed about the carrying of the Govt. cement on a buffalo cart to West Bengal by the appellant. He has also stated that the cart was going towards south which leads to West Bengal. The villagers were not allowing the cart to move which was going to West Bengal and the appellant was quarrelling with the villagers. Thereafter the cart was taken to police station. According to him, the appellant had not stated that he was taking the cement to his village from the work site. The villagers were not allowing the cart to move which was going to West Bengal and the appellant was quarrelling with the villagers. Thereafter the cart was taken to police station. According to him, the appellant had not stated that he was taking the cement to his village from the work site. The investigating officer of this case has also supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he got the Fardbeyan recorded and he also put his signature on the Fardbeyan. According to him, he seized the cement with the signature of the independent witnesses. The place of occurrence was 100 yards from north of Bandh of Mahananda river and about a K.M. away from the village Palasi. He has stated that the work site of the appellant was 2 K.M. South from the place of occurrence and the Bengal Border was only 100 yards away. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no restriction for transportation of cement from one place to other within the territory of Bihar. The cement was caught at village Palasi. It has been further submitted that the offence of selling of cement in black market has not been proved. The cart on which cement was loaded had not crossed the border and only on suspicion of villagers the case against the appellant cannot be instituted and the conviction passed by the court below is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. From deposition of two witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution creates strong suspicion that the Govt. cement to issued to the appellant was actually being carried to the West Bengal. However, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the alleged place of occurrence was in Bihar itself and as such, as submitted by the learned counsel there was no restriction on transportation and movement. Therefore, the seizure of cement on suspicion does not attract any offence. The prosecution could not produce any evidence to show that actually the cement was being carried to the West Bengal for selling it in black market. Only on strong suspicion it is not proper to convict the appellant since he did not violate any provision of control order to attract punishment under section 7 of E.G. Act. The prosecution could not produce any evidence to show that actually the cement was being carried to the West Bengal for selling it in black market. Only on strong suspicion it is not proper to convict the appellant since he did not violate any provision of control order to attract punishment under section 7 of E.G. Act. In this view of the matter it is quite clear that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and the appellant deserves benefit of doubt. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside and the appellant is set at liberty. In the result, this appeal is allowed.