Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 2/5.11.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Faridabad, convicting the accused- appellant Bijender singh @ Bijender Kumar (herein referred as the accused) under Sec.7 of the essential Commodities Act (herein referred as the Act), for having violated the clause 3 of the Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1976 (herein referred as control Order, 1976), and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-. 2. In nut shell, the facts are that the accused was running a Karyana shop in the area of Police Station City Ballabgarh. On 26.3.1996, at about 8.30 p. m, when SI Chhaju Ram (PW5) was present at the bus stand of Ballabgarh, in the meantime, Inspector Mahabir Singh, Inspector Food and Supplies Department (PW1) also came there. While SI Chajju Ram was talking to Inspector Mahabir Singh, he received secret information that the accused was running a shop in his residence situated at Nehru Nagar, Ballabgarh and was indulging in an unauthorised sale of kerosene (blue oil) which was meant for distribution through public distribution system and he could be apprehended red handed. Finding the information to be reliable, SI Chajju Ram raided the house of the accused. From search, he was found in possession of kerosene contained in a plastic container. On measurement it came to be 81 1/2 liters. Out of the said bulk kerosene, two bottles were drawn as sample bottles and the residue contained in the plastic container was separately sealed with the seal bearing impression "rs" and the seal after use was handed over to Inspector Mahabir Singh (PW1 ). The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PA. Ruqa Ex. PD was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR No.238 was recorded at Police Station city, Ballabgarh. The accused was arrested. The case was investigated and on completion of the investigation, challan was presented against him. 3. On perusal of the police report, the accused was charged under section 7 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Inspector Mahabir Singh (PW1), HC Ram Avtar (PW2), Constable Mohender Singh (PW3), ASI Shish Ram (PW4)and SI Chajju Ram (PW5 ). After giving up remaining witnesses, the prosecution closed its evidence. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Inspector Mahabir Singh (PW1), HC Ram Avtar (PW2), Constable Mohender Singh (PW3), ASI Shish Ram (PW4)and SI Chajju Ram (PW5 ). After giving up remaining witnesses, the prosecution closed its evidence. In his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. while denying all the allegations, the accused further stated that the kerosene so recovered was related to one Naresh who was running ration depot on the vacant plot which was adjoining to his residence. On seeing the police party, Naresh fled away, whereas, he was arrested. In his defence, he examined Ram Milan (DW1) and Dev rattan (DW2 ). Both of them corroborated the defence version that the kerosene related to one Naresh his neighbour. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. 4. Arguments heard. Record perused. 5. On close scrutiny of the solemn testimony as given by Inspector mahabir Singh (PW1) and SI Chajju Ram (PW5), coupled with the admissions made by the accused regarding recovery of the kerosene from premises, no iota of doubt remains in my mind that 81 1/2 liters of kerosene was recovered from his possession. The only plea set up by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. is as under :- "i have been falsely implicated in this case. Actually this kerosene was of Naresh whose ration depot was adjoining my shop. Said Naresh had himself run away from the spot and I was falsely implicated in this case." 6. But, this plea as well as the testimony of two defence witnesses namely Ram Milan (DW1) and Dev Rattan (DW2) runs counter to the bail application filed by the accused. In the bail application, the accused had taken the plea that he and his tenant had jointly purchased the said kerosene from the depot against the respective ration cards which are not illegal means. The said bail application being the part of the record could certainly be looked into to examine the plea as well as the conduct of the accused. In any case, the plea as set up by the accused in his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. and disclosed by the defence witnesses stands not established. The accused has failed to prove by any evidence that the shop of Naresh adjoins his shop. In any case, the plea as set up by the accused in his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. and disclosed by the defence witnesses stands not established. The accused has failed to prove by any evidence that the shop of Naresh adjoins his shop. Had he been clear and true to his version, then he would have examined the record of the Food and Supply department in order to establish that the ration depot of Naresh adjoins his shop for which he had taken the licence. Naresh did not come forward to claim the kerosene. If this commodity really related to Naresh, then he would have supported this fact from the record stating that the kerosene belonged to him. Since a depot holder is authorised to keep kerosene in his depot for being distributed amongst the customers, therefore, it was not difficult for him to say so in the court. The witnesses Inspector Mahabir Singh (PW1) and SI Chajju ram (PW5) having no ill-will and malice against the accused would not have implicated him without any rhyme or reason. The testimony of Ram Milan (DW1) and dev Rattan (DW2) could be rejected in the light of the fact that in the bail application moved by the accused on 27.3.1996 contains a different version Thus, it could also be safely concluded that the plea set up by the accused now at trial was an after thought. There is also no merit in the plea set up by the accused that in the absence of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the stuff recovered from the container cannot be said to be kerosene. In order to support this argument, learned counsel tried to take shelter of the judgment delivered in case Jai Parkash vs. The State of Haryana 1989 (2) RCR 147, but the facts of the said case are quite different. In that case, there was no admission with regard to the contents of the stuff but in the present case, the accused by way of his bail application dated 27.3.1996 and also in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. has admitted that the stuff contained in the container was kerosene. In that case, there was no admission with regard to the contents of the stuff but in the present case, the accused by way of his bail application dated 27.3.1996 and also in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. has admitted that the stuff contained in the container was kerosene. So, irrespective of the fact that the prosecution was negligent in tendering the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the contents of the plastic container having not been denied by the accused and the recovery of the drum containing kerosene having been admitted, it does not lie in his mouth to say that the plastic container did not contain kerosene so as to contravene the provisions of clause 3 of Control Order, 1976. 7. As regards the argument with regard to conscious possession, inspector Mahabir Singh (PW1) and SI Chajju Ram (PW5), both have consistently stated that the kerosene was lying stored in the shop cum residence of the accused. Moreover, at the cost of repetition, the accused accepted having in possession of 81 1/2 liters of kerosene and claiming its superdari on the ground that he had purchased the same on the basis of the ration card, it cannot be said that the accused was not in conscious possession of the same. 8. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the kerosene is supplied by the Government for feeding the poor and if it is galloped by the people and further sold in the black market at the higher rates, certainly social fabric would be disturbed. As such, the accused does not deserve any benefit of probation or leniency on the quantum of sentence. 9. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.