Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 695 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2006-06-13

D.P.SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT The sole appellant Anil Kumar Singh has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 24.1.2001 passed by Sri S.N. Singh, Special Judge, Gumla in G.R. Case No. 12 of 1987, whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted under section 7(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 3(2)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 21st September, 1985 the informant ASI Crime Investigation Department (Food), Gumla was sitting in front of the house of one Kapildeo Goswami when he saw a Rickshaw moving towards Gumla carrying one bag of wheat. The informant stopped the Rickshaw puller Sakila Uraon and asked from where this wheat was being carried. According to the informant the Rickshaw Puller, P.W. 4 informed him that he was carrying wheat from the shop of the appellant to deliver it at the shop of Lakshman Sahu. As per informant, he immediately seized the wheat and recorded the statement of Sakila Uraon and went to the shop of the appellant to verify it. He further stated that from verification of the shop of the appellant he found 155 kg of wheat sold but stock register and cash memo were not handed over to him for verification on the grounds that it is not possible without the directions of Supply Officer. The informant further reported the matter to SDO, Gumla to ask him to inform the Supply Officer, however matter could not be proceeded till next morning. The shop of the appellant was again visited by the informant in the next morning in presence of the witnesses and he found 3 kgs of wheat less than the stock register. It is also alleged that 230 kg wheat was shown to be distributed. Ultimately a written report was lodged on 26.9.1985 alleging therein that the appellant has committed offences under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and further putting up obstruction in performance of official duties. 3. Gumla Police registered Gumla P.S. Case No. 100 of 1985 under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation police submitted charge sheet for the abovementioned offences against the appellant. 3. Gumla Police registered Gumla P.S. Case No. 100 of 1985 under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation police submitted charge sheet for the abovementioned offences against the appellant. The appellant was tried and found and held guilty of the offences under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to serve R.I. for six months. 4. The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the prosecution version is improbable and not supported by any material evidence on record. It is also asserted that in spite of the specific denial of P.W. 4 Sakila Uraon, the Rickshaw Puller that the wheat seized by the informant was not given to him by the appellant, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant. It is also submitted that in absence of the informant and the I.O. of the case the learned trial court should have acquitted the appellant. According to this memo of appeal unless the wheat seized by the informant was proved to have been delivered by the appellant for black marketing the conviction cannot be sustained. 5. I have considered the statements of the learned counsel for the appellant alongwith the evidence available in the case records. It is admitted fact .on record that the informant Birsa Ram Khalko has lodged this FIR after four days. In the meantime the seized wheat was released by him after taking a sample of the wheat seized. It has also come on record that one Kali Kumar Singh has claimed this wheat seized by him. It has also come in the written report itself that except 3 kg of wheat the stock register was found correct. However, he has not preferred to support the prosecution case in court, therefore, the prosecution case remains on the statement of Sakila Uraon, P.W. 4. This witness has specifically asserted that he was carrying the wheat from the Bus stand for Anil Kumar Singh, which was seized by the informant. According to his version, the wheat was taken by him from the Bus Stand. P.Ws.1 and 7 are formal witnesses who has proved the signature of the I.O. on the Fardbeyan. This witness has specifically asserted that he was carrying the wheat from the Bus stand for Anil Kumar Singh, which was seized by the informant. According to his version, the wheat was taken by him from the Bus Stand. P.Ws.1 and 7 are formal witnesses who has proved the signature of the I.O. on the Fardbeyan. P.W. 2 Ugra Tara Mishra has proved the signature on the seizure list who admitted in cross examination that he has not gone into the details of seizure list before signing over it. P.W. 5 Srinath Gupta and P.W. 6 Vinod Kumar have supported the version of the prosecution that some wheat was seized by the informant from the Rickshaw Puller P.W. 4 and they have proved their signature on it. They have proved Ext. 3, 3/A, 4 and 5. The father of P.W. 6 has got a Ration shop. However, all these evidences do not support the prosecution case that the wheat seized by the informant in the evening of 22.9.1985 was given out of the stock which appellant has to maintain in the Fair Price Shop rather it has come on record that finally the informant found that the stock register is maintained and 230 kg of wheat were distributed to Ration Card Holders. The evidence of P.WA completely demolishes the prosecution case that the wheat seized by the informant was meant for a Fair Price Shop. The absence of the informant and I.O. further makes the prosecution case weak. 6. Having considered the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I find and hold that the prosecution has failed miserably to prove the charges against the appellant. In result, this appeal has got merit and accordingly the impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges and he is released from the liabilities of his bail bond. In this matter this appeal is disposed of.