Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 881 (PNJ)

Kanshi Ram v. State of Haryana

2004-08-11

K.S.GAREWAL

body2004
JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - This appeal has been filed by Kanshi Ram, a depot holder of Karnoli and a resident of Fatehabad. The appellant was tried before the learned Special Judge, Hissar for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act). The appellant was found guilty of contravention of Clause 9(1) of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality Order, 1977 (for short the Order) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The judgment of the learned Special Judge is dated January 9, 1992 and has been challenged in this appeal. 2. On August 7, 1990 A.S.I. Devinder Kumar (PW-6), on receiving a secret information, got registered a case against Kanshi Ram reading storage of essential commodities in his house at Fatehabad and selling these commodities in the black market. The case was registered under Section 7 of the Act at P.S. Fatehabad. Thereafter, the investigating officer raided the house of the appellant but he was not present there. The appellants son Jagdish was found at the house. On entering the house, the investigating officer found that the sitting room (baithak), where drums of kerosene oil and palm oil had been stored, was locked and the key was with the appellant. 3. On the following day, the police got Inspector Dharampal of Department of Food and Supplies deputed, who along with Inspector Om Parkash also reached the house of the appellant at Fatehabad. The investigating officer along with the two Inspectors recovered 12 drums of kerosene oil each containing 220 litres and 10 tins of palm oil, each weighing 15 kgs. Inspector Dharampal asked for the stock and sale register from the appellant but these were not produced on the ground that the register was at the depot. The Inspector took into possession the stock register of kerosene oil and the stock register of palm oil from Karnoli. After completion of the investigation the appellant was sent up for trial. 4. At the trial charge was framed against him under Section 7 of the Act read with Clause 9(1) of the order of which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. After completion of the investigation the appellant was sent up for trial. 4. At the trial charge was framed against him under Section 7 of the Act read with Clause 9(1) of the order of which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined Kishan Partap Singh (PW-1) who testified that he had sold 2420 litres of kerosene oil to Kanshi Ram. Om Parkash was examined as PW-2 who testified that he had sold 10 tins of palm oil to Kanshi Ram (each weighing 15 kgs.). Inspector Dharam Pal appeared as PW-3, S.I. Om Parkash, as P.W. 4, Pirthi Singh as PW-5 and A.S.I. Devinder Kumar as PW 6 and closed the case. 6. The accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code He denied the items of prosecution which appeared against him but admitted that he had purchased the above-stated quantity of kerosone oil from Kishan Partap Singh (PW-1) on August 4, 1990 and the above stated quantity of palm oil from Om Parkash (PW- 2) on August 4, 1990. He, however, went on to state that he did not sell any commodity in the black market. During the days of the occurrence his village had been inundated with flood water and it was on this account that he had stored the commodities, purchased by him, at his house at Fatehabad because he was unable to transport the goods to his depot at Karnoli. 7. The appellant was called upon to enter defence but did not lead any evidence. 8. The learned Special Judge accepted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellant was selling kerosene oil and palm oil in the black market and no evidence had been collected during the investigation in support of this charge. However, the appellant was found guilty of contravention of Clause 9(1) of the Order. 9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the depot of the appellant was at Karnoli but the appellants house was at Fatehabad, therefore, the question to be considered would be whether the stock of oils found at Fatehabad would amount to an offence. 9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the depot of the appellant was at Karnoli but the appellants house was at Fatehabad, therefore, the question to be considered would be whether the stock of oils found at Fatehabad would amount to an offence. Clause 9(1) of the Order is as follows :- "The physical stock balances of various articles in a fair price shop authorised and approved by the government or by any office authorised by it in this behalf, shall conform to the book balances as per account books maintained by him." 10. The learned Special Judge took a very strict and technical view of the provision of Clause 9(1) of the Order by holding that the commodities had to be stored at the depot which had been authorised by the Government and not at any other place. No discrepancy in stock was found but the only fault of the appellant was failing to keep the stock at his depot at Karnoli. Therefore, technically speaking the physical stock balance in the fair price shop at Karnoli did not conform to the book balance as per the account maintained by the appellant but one cannot lose sight of the fact that the stock which was found at Fatehabad was the stock which the appellant had purchased from Kishan Partap Singh (PW-1) and Om Parkash (PW-2) just a few days before the aid and the stock was intact as purchased. The appellant had not started distributing these commodities to any consumer at Fatehabad. It is true that the appellant had not been able to present proof of Karnoli being inundated by floods during those days but the appellant had certainly not disposed of any part of the stock which had been found at Fatehabad. Therefore, it was the location of the stock of commodities which had led to the conviction of the appellant. The appellant had been remiss in stocking the commodities at his residence at Fatehabad. Perhaps after a few days he would have transferred the stock to Karnoli. It is equally true that the appellant may have been tempted to start distributing the oil at Fatehabad itself but he had not done so far. The appellant had been remiss in stocking the commodities at his residence at Fatehabad. Perhaps after a few days he would have transferred the stock to Karnoli. It is equally true that the appellant may have been tempted to start distributing the oil at Fatehabad itself but he had not done so far. Therefore, there may be some weight in the explanation advanced by the appellant that he was unable to transfer the stock of the two oils from Fatehabad to Karnoli on account of floods. 11. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is accepted, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. Appeal allowed.