Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 586 (JHR)

Ayub Ansari v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2005-08-09

R.K.MERATHIA

body2005
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Nobody appeared for the appellant. However, Mr. Pramod Kumar Choudhary, assisted the Court on behalf of the appellant as Amicus Curiae and Mr. A.B. Mahato on behalf of the State. 2. This Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.5.1991 passed in Special Case No. 21 of 1986 convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and awarding him the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years. 3. The prosecution case in short is that the appellant was a dealer under Public Distribution System having a licence No. 562 of 1985 and had his fair price shop at Village Koeridih P.S. Narayanpur. On 16.4.1986, the Circle Officer alongwith the then Supply Inspector, Narayanpur Block inspected the said fair price shop of the appellant and found that the stock of wheat was nil in the Stock Register. From the local enquiry they found that no wheat was supplied out of the quota of the month of March, 1986 but the same was shown supplied for the said period against the names of the customers. 4. The prosecution examined several consumers attached with the fair price shop of the appellant. Their ration cards have also been exhibited in the case. The learned trial Court on appreciation of the materials on record has correctly found that though wheat was shown to have been supplied in the name of certain ration card holders in the Stock Register but there was no corresponding entries in the ration cards and that except of minor contradictions, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 5. In the circumstances, the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant that the Unification Order, 1984 was not applicable or workable regarding wheat on the date of the occurrence in the absence of fixation of storage limit, is of no help to the appellant. Admittedly the appellant was a licensee under the Unification Order, 1984. He was also a fair price shop dealer as an agent of the Government. It is not a case of exceeding storage limit of wheat. 6. In the circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction of the appellant. On the question of sentence, it appears, from the judgment that the appellant had no criminal antecedent, moreover this case relates to the year of 1986. It is not a case of exceeding storage limit of wheat. 6. In the circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction of the appellant. On the question of sentence, it appears, from the judgment that the appellant had no criminal antecedent, moreover this case relates to the year of 1986. In the circumstances I am not inclined to send the appellant to jail again at this stage though he was always on bail and he has not remained in jail. However, in the circumstances, the conviction is altered to a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) and in default to undergo R.I. for one year. The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. If the appellant deposits the said amount of fine or undergo R.I. for one year, in case of default, he will be released and discharged from the bail bonds. The trial Court will see that this order is complied. 7. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.