Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1278 (RAJ)

Ram Kishan v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-21

KHEM CHAND SHARMA

body2006
Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-This criminal appeal by appellant Ram Kishan arises out of the Judgment and order dated 27.03.1985 passed by the Special Judge, E.C. Act Cases, Jaipur by which the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof , to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. As per the prosecution, the appellant was holder of authorisation issued under the Rajasthan Foodgrains and other Essential Articles (Regulations of Distribution) Order, 1976 (hereafter to be referred to as “the order of 1976) for distribution of sugar in Birla Gram. He was found guilty of having contravened the conditions No. 5, 14 and 15 of the Authorisation issued under the Order of 1976. 3. Condition No. 5 of the authorisation lays down that authorised fair price shop keeper shall maintain a daily sale register in Form E, which contains 9 columns. However, in the daily sale register maintained by the appellant, Column No. 8 pertaining to “price charged” was found to be missing. 4. Condition No. 14 of the authorisation requires the fair price shopkeeper to maintain Unit Register in Form G. However, as per the prosecution, the appellant did not maintain the Unit Register. 5. Condition No. 15 requires the authorised fair price shopkeeper to record on the ration cards the quantity of food grains and other essential articles purchased by ration card holders. However, the appellant alleged to have sold the sugar twice to the ration card holders and entry to this effect was made in the sale register, but no such corresponding entry was made in the ration cards. 6. From the evidence on record, in particular the statement of PW. 22 Suraj Karan, the then Sarpanch, Chairman of Vigilance Committee coupled with documentary evidence viz., Exhibit P-37 the certificate issued by the Vigilance Committee, Exhibit P-48 Fard checking and Exhibit D-8, the resolution, it is evident that remaining sugar was sold to the ration card holders under the resolution to Vigilance Chairman, Exhibit D-3, on the slips issued by it. Therefore, no entry could be made in the ration cards. 7. Therefore, no entry could be made in the ration cards. 7. The question which now emerges for consideration would be as to whether the contravention of the conditions of authorisation by the accused appellant was intentional? It is no gain saying that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under the Act as has been held in Nathu Lal vs. State of M.P., AIR 1966 SC 43 . PW. 20 Prabhu Dayal, who at the relevant time was posted as U.D.C. in Supply Section of the Office of S.D.O. Kekari has stated in his cross-examination that original authorisation and its copy both are available on record, which are Exhibit D-1 and D-2. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that authorisation was ever sent to the appellant, but still the appellant was convicted for contravening the conditions of the authorisation which remained in the office of the SDO. Clause 6 of the Order of 1976 lays down that every person to whom the authorisation has been issued under this Order shall comply with the terms and conditions of such authorisation. Thus, pre-requisite to comply with the terms and conditions appears to be the issuance of Authorisation to the person appointed as Fair Price Shopkeeper. As stated above, the evidence clearly discloses that original authorisation is still available on the file of the office of SDO, Kekari and it was never handed over or issued to the appellant. The word “issued” ordinarily means emitted or sent forth and the term “issued when used with reference to a document, it usually means delivered. 8. When the original authorisation was never delivered to the accused appellant, how can it be said that appellant had the knowledge of the terms and conditions incorporated in the authorisation. In this view of the matter, the appellant could not have been convicted for contravening the conditions enumerated in the authorisation, in asmuchas the breach of condition as alleged cannot either be said intentional or mala fide. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under the impugned Judgment is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence charged with.