Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 829 (PAT)

Deonath Prasad, Mahendra Ram v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-25

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2007
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both the appellants have been convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each with a fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default, to undergo further sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 1.12.1988 at 4.30 A.M. the informant, Officer-in-Charge, Islampur P.S. got confidential information that in the joint partnership mill of Deonath Prasad and Mahendra Ram the wheat belonging to F.C.I., Islampur had been stored on 30.11.88 in the night. He after drawing S.D. entry bearing no. 512 organised a raiding party. He along with the S.I. and other constables raided the mill premises on, 1.12.1988 at 7.00 A.M. in presence of two independent witnesses namely Shyamnandan Singh and Sri Bishwanath Prasad and both the accused were also present at the time of raid. It has been stated that 25 bags of wheat including five bags containing mark of F.C.I, were recovered and after recovery both the accused were asked to show the account for the same but they did not show any document. Hence the informant seized those 25 bags of wheat and prepared seizure list. The copy of the seizure list was handed over to both the appellants. On the basis of written report a formal F.I.R. Ext.5 was drawn at Islampur P.S. on 1.12.88 at about 9.00 A.M. and investigation started. After completion of the investigation the Officer-in-charge (informant) submitted chargesheet against both the . accused. Thereafter cognizance of the of- fence was taken for the offence under, sec- tion 414 of the Indian Penal Code and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the trial started which concluded with the result as stated above. 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined eight witnesses in this case. P.W.1 is Ram Lagan Ram. He has been declared hostile. P.W.2 is Ram Balak Singh, Constable. P.W.3 is Krishna Kumar Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Islampur P.S. He is informant of this case. P.W.4 is Ram Das Yadav. P.W.5 is Shatrughan Prasad. He has been declared hostile. P.W.6 is Satya Narayan Pandit. He has also been declared hostile. P.W.7 is Lallu Sao and P.W.8 is Krishna Mohan Prasad, Supply Inspector. 4. P.W.2 is Ram Balak Singh, Constable. P.W.3 is Krishna Kumar Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Islampur P.S. He is informant of this case. P.W.4 is Ram Das Yadav. P.W.5 is Shatrughan Prasad. He has been declared hostile. P.W.6 is Satya Narayan Pandit. He has also been declared hostile. P.W.7 is Lallu Sao and P.W.8 is Krishna Mohan Prasad, Supply Inspector. 4. P.W.3, the informant of this case has stated that at the relevant time of occurrence he was posted as Officer-in-Charge, Islampur P.S. According to him, on 1.12.88 he got secret information that Deo Nath Prasad and Mahendra Ram were running flour mill and they had kept stolen wheat of F.C.I. Thereafter he organised a raid party and raided the premises of the accused persons, the raid was conducted in presence of accused persons. He found 25 bags of wheat concealed in a corner. No paper was produced by them. Thereafter he prepared seizure list in presence of two independent witnesses. He has proved the seizure list and signature of the witnesses and also the signature of the accused persons. He prepared written report, drawn first information report and took up investigation himself. He has given the full description of the occurrence. 5. P.W.2 has supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that 25 bags of wheat were seized on 1.12.88 from the premises of the accused persons out of which on five bags marks of F.C.I, were found. The accused persons had no licence for doing the business of wheat. He has also stated that the seizure list was prepared in presence of independent witnesses and they put their signature over it in his presence. Both the accused persons were given copy of the seizure list, P.W.4 claims to have accompanied the Officer-in-Charge (P.W.3) in the alleged raid in the joint mill of the accused. When the raid was conducted 25 bags of wheat were recovered in conscious possession of both the accused. He had also proved the signatures of both the accused on the seizure list. P.W.7 has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. 6. P.W.8, the Supply Insepctor has stated that he was posted at Islampur on 1.12.88 and he was asked by the informant to check the seized wheat. When the wheat was checked he found 20 to 25 bags of wheat were of the F.C.I. 7. P.W.7 has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. 6. P.W.8, the Supply Insepctor has stated that he was posted at Islampur on 1.12.88 and he was asked by the informant to check the seized wheat. When the wheat was checked he found 20 to 25 bags of wheat were of the F.C.I. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that except the members of the raiding party the other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. He has further submitted that the person who lodged the F.I.R. had himself investigated the case causing great prejudice to the defence. It has also been submitted that in a summary trial the same presiding officer should record the evidence of the witnesses and thereafter the same presiding officer should pronounce the judgment. In procedure of the summary trial only substance of statement of witnesses is recorded and not his verbatim, as such, the above mentioned procedure is followed. 8. It is true that P.W.3 who is the investigating officer has himself raided the premises and lodged the complaint about the recovery of stock of wheat and thereafter he took up investigation of the case. The finding of the apex court in this regard is that the officer who himself lodged the complaint should not take up the investigation himself so that there may not be any occasion to suspect the fair and impartial investigation. That apart only the members of the raiding party have supported the case of the prosecution. The independent witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1, 5, 6 and 7 have not fully supported the case of the prosecution. Even the Supply Inspector (P.W.8) has stated that he was called to check the wheat recovered as to whether it belonged to the Food Corporation of India or not. According to him, the wheat belonged to Food Corporation but the court below disbelieved it and found that the accused persons were not guilty for the offence under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Considering the submission aforesaid I am of the view that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecution case also suffers from technical lacuna like the person who lodged the F.I.R. has become the investigating officer. That apart, the evidence of the witnesses has been recorded by different presiding officers and judgment was delivered by some other person. The prosecution case also suffers from technical lacuna like the person who lodged the F.I.R. has become the investigating officer. That apart, the evidence of the witnesses has been recorded by different presiding officers and judgment was delivered by some other person. In view of aforesaid the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below is set aside. The appellants are directed to be set at liberty.