Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 711 (AP)

Konkimalla Venkata Suresh v. State Of A. P.

2004-07-19

P.S.NARAYANA

body2004
( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-accused, aggrieved by the judgment made by the Special Judge under Essential Commodities Act, Krishna division at Machilipatnam in S. T. C. No. 12 of 1996, dated 22-5-1997. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Civil supplies Department, Vijayawada filed charge-sheet against the appellant-accused on the allegation that on 2-4-1993 at about 12-00 noon, the said Inspector along with his staff and mediators inspected M/s Sri srinivasa General Merchants and found the appellant-accused in the shop and verified the stock register and compared the stocks with book balance and found that there is a variation in the stocks of rice of 40 quintals in 40 bags and it was also found that the appellant-accused was purchasing rice meant for food For Work Programme and also purchasing rice from non-trading rice mills and selling the same at higher rates and thus the appellant-accused had contravened the Clause 3 of A. P. Scheduled commodities Dealers (Licensing and distribution) Order, 1982 and Clause 3 of a. P. Prevention of Hoarding of Food Grains order, 1973 read with Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. ( 3 ) THE prosecution had examined pws. 1 to 4 and Exs. P-1 to P-5 were marked. On behalf of defence, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. D- 1 to D-3 were marked. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, had arrived at a conclusion that the allegation that the accused purchased the rice meant for Food For Work Programme and that he purchased rice from non-trading mills and sold the said rice at higher prices are not substantiated, since none of the witnesses concerned with the same had been examined. But, however, on the ground that the appellant-accused was doing business in rice without having any valid licence and contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of a. P. Prevention of Hoarding of Food Grains order, 1973 and Clause 3 of A. P. Scheduled commodities Dealers (Licensing and distribution) Order, 1982, the appellant- accused was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities act, 1955. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities act, 1955. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant- accused. ( 5 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel representing the appellant had pointed out that even as per the evidence of pws. 2 and 3 the variation is only three quintals and in fact, a finding had been recorded to this effect by the learned Judge. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that to prove that the appellant- accused had licence and the same was sent for renewal, DW-1 was examined, and to explain the variation of three quintals, dw-2 was examined and Ex. D-3 the cash bill was marked. The learned Counsel also submitted that having held that the other allegations are not substantiated by the prosecution, convicting the accused, cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) ON the contrary, the learned additional Public Prosecutor Sri Niranjan reddy would contend that on a careful reading of the relevant provisions, whether the variation is only three quintals or something more may not be material, but, the fact remains that the appellant-accused was in possession of more than 20 quintals of food grains without holding a valid licence which would be in contravention of clause 3 (1) and (2) of the A. P. Scheduled commodities Dealers (Licensing and distribution) Order, 1982 and in the light of the same, the learned Judge had arrived at to the correct conclusion in convicting the accused. ( 7 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record. ( 8 ) P. W. I (Kota Purushotham) deposed that at about 12-00 noon, on 2-4-1993, he was called by the Vigilance inspector to the shop of the accused by name M/s Srinivasa General Merchants and one Oruganti Dasaradha Ramaiah was also present and in their presence, the Vigilance inspector inspected the stocks and found excess of three quintals and the Inspector had seized the entire rice of 40 quintals and kept the same with the mediator dasaradha Ramaiah and the Inspector of vigilance had drafted the panchanama and he had signed the panchanama Ex. P-1. P-1. P. W. 2 (Oruganti Dasaratha Ramaiah) deposed that the Vigilance Inspector had inspected the shop of the accused at 12-00 noon on 2-4-1993 and there was variation of three quintals of rice to the stock register and the Inspector prepared the panchanama and the entire stock was seized and handed over to him and he had issued receipt ex. P-2. P. W. 3 (Ashok Reddy) the Inspector of Vigilance, deposed that on 2-4-1993 at 12. 00 noon he surprised the shop of accused Srinivasa General Stores and found variation of stock and seized 40 quintals of rice in the presence of mediators and drafted panchanama Ex. P-1 and gave stock to P. W. 2, who acknowledged the stocks and he had seized the stock register and bill books Exs. P-3 and P-4. P. W. 3 also deposed that he had filed a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the Joint Collector and his successor filed the charge-sheet. P. W. 4 (M. Diwakar) deposed that he had filed charge-sheet. ( 9 ) IN defence, the accused produced exs. D-1 to D-3 and also examined DWs. 1 and 2. Ex. D-3 is the receipt for purchase of three quintals of rice at the rate of Rs. 500/- from Sri Rama Rice and General Merchants, jaggaiahpet on 2-4-1993. DW-2 (Oruganti seshachalam) was examined to prove the receipt Ex. D-3. However, Ex. D-3 was disbelieved for certain reasons recorded by the learned Judge. It is also the further case of the defence that the accused had sent his licence for renewal and to substantiate his claim, he had examined dw- 1, the Senior Assistant in District Supply officer s Office, who produced the licence bearing No. 64/jpet / 1984 from the office of the District Supply Officer. The said licence was in force from 1984 to 15-3-1997 as per his evidence and DW-1 also deposed that the licence was filed along with application on 31-3-1997 to cancel his licence and to refund the security deposit. Ex. D1 is the application of the accused and Ex. D2 is the duplicate licence. The endorsement ex. D2 shows that the licence had been renewed from 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1996, no doubt it was only on 16-4-1993. ( 10 ) IN the light of the evidence of dw-1 explaining the licence pending renewal and also taking into consideration ex. Ex. D1 is the application of the accused and Ex. D2 is the duplicate licence. The endorsement ex. D2 shows that the licence had been renewed from 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1996, no doubt it was only on 16-4-1993. ( 10 ) IN the light of the evidence of dw-1 explaining the licence pending renewal and also taking into consideration ex. D-3 and the evidence of DW-2, the learned Judge was not justified in recording conviction having arrived at a conclusion that the other allegations were not substantiated for want of evidence. In view of the same, the appellant-accused is entitled for an acquittal. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal appeal is hereby allowed.