Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 661 (MP)

Tara Chand v. State of M. P.

2009-05-15

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence dated 7.7.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Special Case No. 9/1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955') and sentenced to S.I. for three months with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for seven days. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 4.1.1992 Mahendra Singh Raghuvanshi (PW 3) and G.H. Choubey, Food Inspectors, Bhopal inspected MIs Tarachand Hazarilal Flour Mill situated at Bairagarh. At that time Tarachand was there and the Mill was being operated by his brother Lalchand. There were two firms in the name and style of Tarachand Hazarilal and Lalchand Hazarilal. These firms deal in food grains. Tarach and Hazarilal purchased 100 quintals wheat, whereas Lalchand Hazarilal purchased 200 quintals wheat from Food Corporation of India (for short "FCI"), Bhopal. On the basis of information received from the office of FCI, Food Inspectors inspected these firms. They prepared Panchanama Ex. P-7. The appellant did not produce any stock register. On asking he stated that there is no food grains licence in the name of M/s Tarachand Hazarilal. Food Inspector Mahendra Singh Raghuvanshi reported the matter to the Collector, Bhopal vide Ex. P-S, where Case No. 17/B-121/92-93 was registered in the Court of Collector, Bhopal. After the enquiry, it was found that the appellant has contravened the provisions of CIs. 2 (3) (3) of M.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991 and thus committed offence under sections 3/7 of the Act, 1955. Thereafter a letter along with the order of the Collector dated 12.12.1995 was sent for registering the case against M/s Tarachand Hazarilal. 3. On the basis of it, FIR was registered on 15.2.1996 at Police Station Bairagarh against the appellant where Crime No. 49/1996 under sections 3/7 of the Act was registered and the matter was investigated. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Special Court, Bhopal for trial. 4. The accused was charged under sections 3/7 of the Act, 1955. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Special Court, Bhopal for trial. 4. The accused was charged under sections 3/7 of the Act, 1955. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses and accused appellant examined one witness in his defence. After appreciating the evidence, trial Court found the appellant guilty under section 3/7 of the Act, 1955 and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in para 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5. Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There are contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The appellant was having Flour Mill, hence purchased wheat from FCI, Bhopal. Entry was made in the stock register. According to the Panchanama Ex. P-7 only 7 quintals wheat was found in excess at the Flour Mill. There is no breach of any order, hence no offence under section 3/7 of the Act is made out. The finding of guilt is erroneous, which deserves to be set aside and appellant is entitled for acquittal. 6. On the contrary, Shri S.S. Bisen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that the appellant purchased 100 quintals wheat from FCI, Bhopal without food grains licence. As per the rule, he cannot store more than 10 quintals wheat at a time, hence there is contravention of the Order, 1991 and has rightly been convicted and sentenced, which does not call for any interference. 7. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under sections 3/7 of the Act. 8. T.L. Gyanchandani (PW 1) has deposed that release order No.89752 (Ex. P-1) was issued on 24.12.1991 in favour of M/s Tarachand S/o Hazarilal Flour Mill. According to him, Flour Mill licence was seen at the time of issuing of release order. 9. 8. T.L. Gyanchandani (PW 1) has deposed that release order No.89752 (Ex. P-1) was issued on 24.12.1991 in favour of M/s Tarachand S/o Hazarilal Flour Mill. According to him, Flour Mill licence was seen at the time of issuing of release order. 9. Mahendra Singh Raghuvanshi (PW 1) has deposed that 100 quintals wheat was purchased by the appellant in the name of M/s Tarachand Hazarilal Flour Mill. Release order 89752 is Ex. P-1, which was issued on 24.12.1991 from FCI, Bhopal. T.L. Gyanchandani (PW 1) has given evidence in this regard. This fact finds support from the evidence of Mahendra Singh Raghuvanshi (PW 3), who has deposed 100 quintals wheat was purchased by M/s Tarachand Hazarilal Flour Mill, but no food grains licence was found in the name of this firm, even stock register was not found. This fact also finds support from the order dated 12.12.1995 (Ex. P-3) passed by the Collector, Bhopal. Thus, it is established that appellant purchased 100 quintals wheat from the office of FCI, Bhopal without having food grains licence. 10. The defence of the appellant is that the wheat was purchased under the Scheme of Open Sale of Wheat, which was issued by the Central Government in the year 1990 and 1991. The wheat was supplied to the appellant, because he was having the flour mill licence. The stock of wheat was to be supplied to the Atta Chakkis or Bakeries vide Ex. D-4 and Ex. 0-6. 11. On perusal of these documents, it reveals that 10 MT wheat was to be released in favour of Mis Tarachand Hazarilal Flour Mill, Bairagarh, but this was subjected to verification of Original Valid Registration/current licence issued by the M.P. Government Authorities. It is evident that no food grains licence was issued in favour of the appellant under M.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991. Merely production of licence of Aata Chakkis or licence issued by the Municipal Corporation, appellant was not sufficient to purchase 100 quintals wheat from the FCI, Bhopal. The licence under M.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991 was essential for this purpose. This licence was not taken by him, hence he illegally purchased 100 quintals wheat from FCI, Bhopal. In such circumstances the defence of the appellant is not tenable. 12. The licence under M.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991 was essential for this purpose. This licence was not taken by him, hence he illegally purchased 100 quintals wheat from FCI, Bhopal. In such circumstances the defence of the appellant is not tenable. 12. It is apparent from the statement of Food Inspector Mahendra Singh Raghuvanshi (PW 3) that no stock register was produced at the time of inspection and excess quantity of wheat was found as detailed in Panchanama Ex. P-7, which was prepared by him during the course of investigation. 13. According to M.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991, the appellant was entitled only for 10 quintals wheat. Since he was found in excess quantity of wheat, therefore he has contravened the provisions of the Order, 1991, hence committed the offence under sections 3/7 of the Act, 1955. The trial Court has dealt with every aspect in great detail and I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the finding of trial Court. The appellant has rightly been held guilty under sections 3/7 of the Act, hence the finding of guilt is hereby affirmed. 14. So far as sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is more than 80 years, hence lenient view is required to be taken in the matter of sentence. 15. On perusal of the record, it reveals that the appellant has been awarded minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under the Act, 1955, hence no reduction in the sentence is called for. The sentence awarded by the Court below is also hereby affirmed. This appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. 16. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under sections 3/7 of the Act, 1955 is hereby maintained. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal on 15.7.2009 to undergo the sentence awarded by the Court below.