Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 99 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Rameshwar Dass

2004-01-28

AMAR DUTT

body2004
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - The State of Haryana being aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.2.1991 had filed this appeal. 2. Briefly, stated, the facts of the prosecution case, as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses, are that on 14.12.1990, Shri M.S. Lather, District Food & Supplies Commissioner, Panipat (PW7) alongwith Dilbagh Singh, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Panipat (PW4) and Deva Singh, Inspector, Food and Supplies (PW1) had gone to the premises of M/s Garg Rice Industries, Industrial Area, Panipat, where they had checked the stock of paddy and rice lying there. As a result of the checking, they found that stock of superfine rice was short to the extent of 451.49 quintals and common superfine paddy was found in excess to the extent of 603.19 quintals and Basmati paddy was found to be short to the extent of 31.63 quintals. Deva Singh had, thereupon, taken into possession the stock registers of rice and paddy and the milling register Ex. P1 to Ex. P3. He had then produced the same before the S.H.O. of Police Station City, Panipat alongwith the detailed report dated 17.12.1990 Ex.PF of the District Food and Supplies Commissioner, Panipat. On the basis of Ex.PF, a formal FIR Ex.PF/1 was recorded by Ram Kumar, Inspector PW6. The Inspector had himself gone to the premises of M/s Garg Rice Industries and had deputed Varinder Singh S.I. (PW5) and one Constable for guarding the godowns of the Mill. On 18.12.1990, Ram Kumar, Inspector had again gone to the rice Mills where he had called Deva Singh (PW1) and Dilbagh Singh (PW4). The bags of rice and paddy, which were lying in the godowns of the Mill were then counted and 4/5 bags, out of each godown, weighed for determining the weight of paddy and rice that was in stock. Thereafter, the godowns were locked and sealed and the rice and paddy lying there were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PB, which was attested by Deva Singh (PW1), Varinder Singh S.I.(PW5) and Mahabir Singh Constable. During the investigation, the Inspector took into possession Ex. PC, the licence issued to M/s Garg Rice Industries under the Haryana Food Articles (Licensing and Price Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Order of 1985). PB, which was attested by Deva Singh (PW1), Varinder Singh S.I.(PW5) and Mahabir Singh Constable. During the investigation, the Inspector took into possession Ex. PC, the licence issued to M/s Garg Rice Industries under the Haryana Food Articles (Licensing and Price Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Order of 1985). Ex.PE, the levy Khata of the rice mill in respect of purchase of rice and paddy for the period 15.9.1990 to 15.12.1990, was also taken into possession. The papers showed that Rameshwar Dass respondent was the proprietor of the firm and Dev Dutt was working as Munim-cum-Manager. Since the Mill had contravened the conditions of the licence issued and, therefore, violated the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short "the 1955 Act"), on completion of the investigation, the challan under Section 7 of the 1955 Act was put in Court. 3. The respondents were summoned to face their trial and eventually, notice of the allegations was served upon them for having committed an offence under Section 7 of 1955 Act. In response to the notice, the respondents pleaded not guilty whereupon the prosecution examined PW1 Deva Singh, Inspector; PW2 Mauji Ram, Clerk; PW3 Narain Singh, Auditor Food and Supplies, Panipat; PW4 Dilbagh Singh, A.F.S.O.; PW5 Varinder Singh, S.I.; PW6 Ram Kumar, Inspector and PW7 M.S. Lather, D.F.S.C. in support of its case. 4. When examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the respondents took the plea that the case against them was false. Dev Dutt stated that he was not the Incharge of M/s Garg Rice Industries and was not responsible for the conduct of its business. He asserted that he was innocent and had been implicated for an ulterior motive. Rameshwar Dass respondent also denied that he was the proprietor of M/s Garg Rice Industries and he took up the plea of false implication on account of extraneous considerations. He had further explained that the officials of the Food and Supplies Department were bent upon harassing him and that in the previous year, they had filed a challan against him under Section 7 of the 1955 Act, in which case he had been discharged. When called upon to enter into their defence, the respondents placed on record Ex. He had further explained that the officials of the Food and Supplies Department were bent upon harassing him and that in the previous year, they had filed a challan against him under Section 7 of the 1955 Act, in which case he had been discharged. When called upon to enter into their defence, the respondents placed on record Ex. DA, copy of the judgment of the Sessions Court dated 4.7.1989, in E.C. Act Case No. 14/3 of 1989 titled State v. Rameshwar Dass to prove that previously too, Rameshwar Dass had been prosecuted unsuccessfully by the department. 5. The trial Court, after perusing the record and hearing arguments, had come to the conclusion that the case against the respondents was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. While doing so, the Court had come to the conclusion that according to the memo Ex. PB that was prepared in relation to the number of bags that were lying in the godown, 10966 bags contained common superfine paddy, 1811 bags contained Basmati paddy and 349 bags contained superfine rice as on 14.12.1990 and after discussing the evidence on the record, the Court came to the following conclusion :- "From the above quoted assertions of Deva Singh PW1, Dilbagh Singh PW4 and M.S. Lather PW7 it is apparent that they had not weighed all the bags of rice and paddy which had been found lying in this mill on 14.12.1990 and that they had weighed only 4-5 bags of rice and paddy and on the basis of the weight of these 4-5 bags they had perhaps calculated the total weight of about 12000 bags of rice and paddy which had been found lying in the Mill and had thus come to the conclusion that there was shortage of Superfine rice and Basmati paddy and that the stock was in excess in respect of Common Superfine paddy. The method adopted by these officials of the Food and Supplies Department in ascertaining the weight of about 12000 bags containing rice and paddy on the basis of the weight of 4-5 bags of rice and paddy alone was thoroughly defective and could not be relied upon for holding that there was in fact any excess or shortage in the stock of rice and paddy which was lying in the Mill Premises. There is also a discrepancy in the statements of these three official witnesses on the question as to whether or not any rough notes were prepared regarding the weight of 4 or 5 bags of rice and paddy which had allegedly been weighed by them. In any case no rough notes had been produced before the Court in order to show as to what was the weight of paddy and rice which was contained in those bags and as to whether or not the weight of rice and paddy which was contained in about 12000 bags could be safely calculated on the basis of the weight of 4-5 bags of rice and paddy." Furthermore, it observed as under :- "From the above quoted assertions of the prosecution witnesses it would appear that there are discrepancies in their statements on the question as to how many bags of paddy and rice were weighed and as to whether or not any bags of rice and paddy were in fact weighed on 18.12.1990. There is also discrepancy in their statements as regards the person to whom the seal was delivered after sealing the godowns. There is also a discrepancy in their statements as to whether or not the rough notes regarding the weight of these bags which had been weighed had been prepared. There is also a discrepancy in the statement of these witnesses on the question as to when they had gone to the Mill Premises on 18.12.1990 and as to for how long they remained there and as to when they had finally left the Mill Premises on that day." 6. The trial Court was of the view that there was no evidence on the record to show that Dev Dutt was working as a Munim and Rameshwar Dass was the sole proprietor of M/s Garg Rice Industries. It also came to the conclusion that the officials of the Food & Supplies Department were inimically deposed against Rameshwar Dass as was evident from the fact that he had on earlier occasion been challaned in E.C. Act Case No. 14/3 of 1989, in which he was discharged on 4.7.1989. In view of these factors, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the case against the respondents was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. In view of these factors, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the case against the respondents was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. Although Shri Vashisth made a valiant effort to urge that the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are not warranted by the evidence on record, yet he has not been able to pin-point any evidence, which would enable me to uphold the procedure, which had been followed by the Food & Supplies Department for coming to the conclusion that a shortfall as alleged by them existed. There is no sanction in law for the procedure followed by the authorities of basing their inference on the result of the sample survey for 4-5 bags of paddy for determining the weight of 12000 bags that were stored in the godown of M/s Garg Rice Industries. The conclusion of the trial Court, in this regard, cannot be said to be perverse especially when the procedure was not agreed to by the representatives of the Mill owners and the documents relied upon are not even signed by the representatives. There is also nothing on the record to hold as incorrect the finding that the respondents were the proprietor and Munim of M/s Garg Rice Industries. 9. Looked at from any angle, since the State has not been able to bring to my notice any material, which would enable me to hold that the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court were against the record having overlooked admissible evidence, the judgment does not call for any interference and the same has to be upheld. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.