Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 840 (PAT)

Yogendra Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-27

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that as per the written report (Ext. 4) of Shri S.P. Sinha, Marketing Officer, Biharsharif on 1.5.1989 he inspected the grocery shop of accused Yogendra Prasad and found rice, wheat, flour etc. but in respect of stock and prices there was no any notice board nor he was granting any cash memo to the customers. It is said that accused Yogendra Prasad admitted his guilt before him and gave in writing and hence the informant S.P. Sinha, Marketing Officer gave his written report to, the Officer Incharge, Soh Sarai police station on the same day at about 6 P.M. and on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was drawn up. The police after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether four witnesses. P.W. 1 is Anul Haque. P.W. 2 is Sisheshwar Prasad Sinha. P.W. 3 is Amar Singh and P.W. 4 is Ashok Singh. 5. P.W. 1 is Anul Haque. He has stated that he alongwith the other Supply Officer had gone to the grocery shop of accused Yogendra Prasad and found wheat, rice, flour etc. but they did not find the notice board showing the stock and display of prices. He has clearly given out that accused was present in the grocery shop. He has also given out that the accused has failed to show any paper in respect of trade articles available in his shop on 1.5.1989 which have been proved by him as Ext.1. He has further proved the written report admitting his guilt in respect of inspection made by them alongwith Marketing Officer, as Ext. 2. He has further proved the sanction order granted by the S.D.O., Biharsharif as Ext.3. He has further proved the written report written by Sidheshwar Prasad Sinha as Ext.4. 6. He has further proved the written report admitting his guilt in respect of inspection made by them alongwith Marketing Officer, as Ext. 2. He has further proved the sanction order granted by the S.D.O., Biharsharif as Ext.3. He has further proved the written report written by Sidheshwar Prasad Sinha as Ext.4. 6. P.W. 2, Sisheshwar Prasad Sinha is the informant of this case. He has given out that on 1.5.1989 at about 10.00 A.M. he has inspected the grocery shop of the accused Yogendra Prasad alongwith other Supply Inspectors and the accused present in his shop. He claims to have found five quintals 50 Kg. rice, five quintals 20 kg wheat, 20 Kg. flour alongwith other items of trade articles. According to him, accused Yogendra Prasad failed to show cashmemo etc. and that there was no any notice board snowing stock position and display of price. He has further stated that the accused has voluntarily admitted his guilt and gave his writing which is Ext. 1. He has proved his signature which finds place in Ext. 1. as Ext. 5. He has also given out details in respect of sanction order Ext. 3. He has also given in details his own written report Ext.4. 7. P.W. 3, Amar Singh has fully corroborated the version of P.Ws. (sic) and 2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the occurrence took place 18 years back and the appellant is petty shop keeper and has remained in custody for one month. He has further submitted that the appellant has already deposited fine of Rs. 800/-. As such some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to the appellant. 9. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he had already undergone in jail with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Out of the aforesaid fine amount the appellant has already deposited Rs. 800/- so the appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 200/- only within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the appellant shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 10. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence and fine this appeal is dismissed.