Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 60 (PAT)

Dasarath Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2002-01-15

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2002
Judgment INDU PRABHA SINGH, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief. is that Rajalal Sah (P.W. 9), Supply Inspector of, inspected the fair price shop of the appellant on 10.9.1987 in presence of the appellant and found that 10 quintal of wheat and one quintal of rice was lifted by appellant on 29.8.1987 from Bihar State Food Corporation, Motipur but he did not enter these commodities in his stock register as required. It is said that appellant lifted 490 liters of Kerosene Oil and 4 Quintals of Sugar on 15.8.1987 and entered the same in the stock register but consumers complained to the informant that appellant instead of supplying two litres of Kerosene Oil per family. used to supply to the consumers at the rate of half to one litre per family and that too at higher price. It is said that appellant used to charge from the consumers at the rate of Rs. 2.75 per litre of Kerosene Oil as against the prescribed rate of Rs. 2.38 per litre. It has been further stated that the appellant also used to charge higher price for the sugar. He used to charge at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per kgs. against the prescribed rate of Rs. 4.85 per kg. 17 consumers gave written statement before the Supply Inspector complaining about the aforesaid irregularity committed by the appellant. The Supply Inspector seized the stock registers, sale registers, cash-memo books and produced the same alongwith written statement of consumers at Baruraj police station at the time of lodging of the written information (Ext. 1). On the basis of the said written information, Baruraj P.S. Case No. 83/87 was registered and formal FIR (Ext. 2) was lodged. The Officer Incharge of Baruraj police station prepared a production list (Ext. 3) of the various registers and documents produced before him by the informant. After completion of investigations the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Accordingly cognizance was taken and subsequently the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 11 witnesses. After completion of investigations the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Accordingly cognizance was taken and subsequently the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 11 witnesses. P.W.2, Nagendra Prasad Gupta, P.W.7, Bibhishan Jha and P.W. 4, Ganesh Ojha have been declared hostile. P.W. 1, Prabhunath Lal is a seizure list witness. P.W. 3, Rajalal Sah is the informant. P.W. 5 is Yadav Rai. P.W. 6 is Nand Kumar Pandey. P.W. 8 is Balram Rai P.W. 9, Brij Kishore Prasad, is the I.O. of this case P.W. 10 is Udan Rai and P.W. 11 is Nandlal Rai. 5. The prosecution has also brought on the record stock and sale register of food grains. kerosene oil. sugar of the fair price shop of the appellant and these are Exts. 5 series. P.Ws.6 and 10 have not supported the case of the prosecution. 6. P.W. 3. the informant. has fully supported the case of the prosecution as narrated in his FIR. According to him he inspected the fair price shop in presence of the appellant and found 10 quintals of wheat and 1 quintal of rice was lifted by the appellant on 29.8.1987 from the Bihar State Food Corporation. Motipur. But the same as requirement was not entered in the stock register. He has further stated that the appellant lifted 490 litre of kerosene oil and 4 quintals of sugar on 15.8.1987 and entered the same in the stock register but the consumers complained to the informant that appellant instead of supplying two litres of kerosene oil per family used to supply to the consumers at the rate of half to one litre per family and that too at higher price. According to his appellant used to charge from the consumers at the rate of Rs. 2.75 per litre of kerosene oil as against the prescribed rate of Rs. 2.38 per litres. He has further stated that the appellant used to charge higher price for the sugar and he used to charge at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per kg as against the prescribed rate of Rs. 4.85 per kg. 2.75 per litre of kerosene oil as against the prescribed rate of Rs. 2.38 per litres. He has further stated that the appellant used to charge higher price for the sugar and he used to charge at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per kg as against the prescribed rate of Rs. 4.85 per kg. According to him 17 consumers gave written statement before the Supply Inspector complaining about the aforesaid irregularity committed by the appellant. Accordingly, he seized the stock registers, sale registers, cash memo books and produced the same alongwith written statement of consumers at Daruraj police station. 7. The other witnesses P.W. 5 and 8 have also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 8. Balam Rai, has stated in his evidence that he is a consumer of the fair price shop of the appellant and before institution of the case. he was supplied by the appellant half litre of Kerosene oil at the rate of Rs. 2.75 per litre and one kilogram of sugar at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per kg and he did not get any other articles. 8. P.W. 5 has stated that about 15 months back he used to get ration from the shop of the appellant and at that time appellant used to supply him sugar at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per kg. and kerosene oil at the rate of Rs. 2.75 per litre. 9. From the evidence of the witnesses it is clear that the appellant lifted 10 quintals of wheat and 4 quintals of rice on 29.8.1987 from Bihar State Food Corporation. Motipur but he did not enter these commodities in the stock register as required. It is also clear from the deposition of the witnesses that the appellant lifted 490 litres of kerosene oil and 4 quintals of sugar on 15.8.1987 and entered the same in the stock register but the consumers complained to the informant that appellant instead of supplying two litres of kerosene oil per family and he used to supply to the consumers at the rate of half to one litre per family and that too at higher price. The appellant has also accepted under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that by mistake he did not enter the same in the stock register. 10. The appellant has also accepted under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that by mistake he did not enter the same in the stock register. 10. From the discussion made above it is clear that the court below has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Act. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. 11. Coming to the question of sentence the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the occurrence took place in the year 1987 ie.. 15 years ago and the during this period the appellant has been sufficiently punished and harassed. He has further submitted that there is no criminal antecedent and previous conviction against the appellant. He has further submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for some time, therefore some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to the appellant. 12. Having regard to the submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the view that it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail . 13 With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.