Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1507 (PAT)

Muneshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar

2012-11-02

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Accordingly, Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this appeal on behalf of the appellant. 2. The appellant has been found guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and as such, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge, Saharsa in Special Case No. 10 of 1985. 3. The occurrence is said to have taken place between 29th April, 1985 and 19th May, 1985 at village Lalpatti of Tulapatti Kataiya Panchayat. It is alleged that the appellant had lifted 220 litres of Kerosene Oil on 29th April, 1985 and again lifted 220 litres of Kerosene Oil on 08th May, 1985. On inspection, it was found that the stock register was not available and there was no stock of Kerosene Oil in the shop. The explanation given on behalf of the accused was that his son had gone to Supaul to lift Kerosene Oil and that the stock register was with him. 4. In order to prove the prosecution case, seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.PW 2 Rasiklal Mandal and PW 3 Ram Bahadur Mandal were the witnesses who accompanied the informant at the time of inspection was made, have been declared hostile as they have not supported the fact that they had inspected the shop of the appellant. On the other hand, the other witnesses i.e. PW 4 Sadrul Haque, the Peon and PW 5 Sona Jha, the driver, who had accompanied the informant, have supported the factum of inspection. 5. On perusal of the evidence, it would appear that Exhibits 7 and 7/1, which are the carbon copies of the cash memos, which is the backbone of the allegations levelled against the appellant, indicate that kerosene Oil was lifted by one Ram Kumar. Ram Kumar cannot be traced to prove that he is associated with the appellant or his son and as such, it would appear that the basis of the case falls flat on the ground. 6. Apart from which, the evidence also indicates that there is no basis for concluding that the appellant was the person who was responsible for lifting the Kerosene Oil. 6. Apart from which, the evidence also indicates that there is no basis for concluding that the appellant was the person who was responsible for lifting the Kerosene Oil. There are no complaints that the appellant had sold Kerosene Oil in the black-market. The informant has not been able to prove that the appellant was the person who lifted Kerosene Oil. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that the conviction against the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 14th July, 1995 passed in Special Case No. 10 of 1985 is set aside. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.