Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 166 (CHH)

LOKESHWAR PRASAD CHANDRAKAR v. STATE OF M. P.

2013-06-11

Radhe Shyam Sharma

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-09-1997 passed by Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act (henceforth 'the Act'), Durg in Special Case No. 105/1992. By the impugned judgment, appellant/accused Lokeshwar Prasad Chandrakar has been convicted under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:- On 24-06-1992, Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) searched the grocery shop (kirana dukan) along with SDO R.K. Sahu, Tahsildar S.K. Sharma, Nayab Tahsildar C.R. Netam. The grocery shop of the appellant was situated in village Khapparwada at Durg -Balod road. The appellant was owner of the said shop. At the time of search, the appellant was present in the shop. During the search, Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) found 700 liters kerosene in the shop. On being enquired, appellant Lokeshwar Prasad Chandrakar told Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) that he had purchased the kerosene at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per liter through hockers of Bhilai and he wanted to sell the kerosene at the rate of Rs. 4.00/- per liter and he had no licence for selling the kerosene. Therefore, the appellant violated the provisions of ‘M.P. Kerosene (Dealer Licensing) Order, 1979. Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) prepared inspection panchnama (Ex.-P/1) on the spot and kerosene was seized vide Ex.-P/3 and the same was given to the appellant on Supurdnama vide Ex.-P/2. The statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.-P/4. Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) submitted written report (Ex.-P/6) before the Collector, Durg. Thereafter he filed a complaint before the Special Judge under the Act who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. Shri Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Special Judge erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. The kerosene was seized from open place which was not in exclusive possession of the appellant. The kerosene was seized from the Khalihan which is situated behind the grocery shop of the appellant. He further argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the seized article was kerosene. The evidence of Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) is not reliable. The kerosene was seized from the Khalihan which is situated behind the grocery shop of the appellant. He further argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the seized article was kerosene. The evidence of Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) is not reliable. The prosecution has not been able to make out the offence against the appellant. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge framed against him. 4. On the other hand, Anand Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not call for any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of Special Case No. 105/92 with utmost circumspection. 6. Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) deposed that on 24-06-1992, at about 4.00 pm, he inspected the grocery shop and khalihan of the appellant which was situated at village Khapparwada. At that time, the appellant was present. He inspected the shop and khalihan of the appellant in presence of SDO R.K. Sahu, Tahsildar Gundardehi S.K. Sharma and Nayab Tahsildar Netam. He further deposed that at that time, Kotwar Sundarlal (PW-1) and two other independent witnesses were also present there. He further deposed that during the inspection, he found 700 liters kerosene in 4 drums. He seized the kerosene vide Ex.-P/3 in presence of independent witnesses and the same was given to the appellant on Supurdnama vide Ex.-P/2. 7. Tularam Sahu (PW-3) deposed that SDO Patan, Tahsildar Gundardehi and Food Inspector came to the village and they inspected the shop of the appellant. In para 4, he admitted that panchnama and seizure memo were prepared. He also admitted that Ex.-P/1 bears his signature. 8. Banshi Lal (PW-4) deposed that the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the appellant where 4 drums containing 700 liters kerosene were found. The kerosene was seized vide Ex.-P/3 and the same was given to the appellant on Supurdnama vide Ex.-P/2. Janch ka panchnama (inspection panchnama (Ex.P/1)) was prepared on the spot which bears his signature. 9. Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) deposed that he recorded the statement of the appellant vide Ex.-P/4 and also prepared inspection panchnama vide Ex.-P/1 which bears signatures of independent witnesses, the appellant, SDO and Tahsildar. 10. Janch ka panchnama (inspection panchnama (Ex.P/1)) was prepared on the spot which bears his signature. 9. Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) deposed that he recorded the statement of the appellant vide Ex.-P/4 and also prepared inspection panchnama vide Ex.-P/1 which bears signatures of independent witnesses, the appellant, SDO and Tahsildar. 10. In examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when questions No. 14 and 15 were put to the appellant, he admitted the above facts. When question No. 19 was asked to the appellant that Sundarlal (PW-1) stated that the Food Inspector seized the kerosene from khlihan, then he replied 'yes'. Even when questions No. 22 and 36 were put to the appellant, he replied 'yes it is true'. 11. Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukia (PW-5) specifically deposed that he recorded the statement of the appellant vide Ex.-P/4. In Ex.-P/4, the appellant admitted that:- ^^eS yksds’oj izlkn pUnkzdj firk&d`ikjke pUnzkdj] voLFkk&29 o”kZ fuoklh&xkze [kIijokM+k iksLV&Mxfuk Fkkuk&iqyxk¡o ¼nqxZ½ rglhy xq.Mjnsgh] ftyk ¼e-iz-½ vkt fnukad 24&6&92 dks [kk| ,oae vkiwfrZ fujh{kd xq.Mjnsgh ds le{k lR;fu”Bk iwoZd LosfPNd dFku djrk gw¡ fd & ¼1½ ;g fd eS xkze&[kIijokM+k fLFkr es- pUnzkdj fdjkuk LVkslZ dk ekfyd ¼izksijkbVj½ gw¡A ¼2½ ;g fd eS Lohdkj djrk gw¡ ds esjs }kjk feêhrsy dk dz; fodz; ,oae~ fodz; ds fy, laxzgu fd;k tkrk gSA blds fy;s esjs ikl vuqKkiu izkf/kdkjh nqxZ }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k vuqKfIr ugh gSA ¼3½ ;g gS fd eS Lohdkj djrk gw¡ fd vkt fnuakd 24&6&92 dks tkap le; fdjkuk nqdku ds ihNs fLFkr [kfygku es esjs }kjk pkj Mªeks es 700 yhVj ¼lkr lkS yhVj½ feêh rsy iSjk ds uhps Nqik dj j[kk x;k FkkA ;g feêh rsy esjs }kjk fHkykbZ ds feêh rsy gk¡djks ls rhu :i;s ipkl iSls ¼3¾50 :i;s½ izfr yhVj dh nj ls [kjhnk x;k FkkA gk¡djks dk uke o irk eq>s Kkr ugh gSA vkSj u gh esjs ikl [kjhnh fcy vFkok chtd gSA ¼4½ ;g fd esjs }kjk mDr feêh dk rsy dk fdjkuk nqdku ls 4¾00 :i;s ¼pkj :i;s½ izfr yhVj dh nj ls QqVdj fcdzh fd;k tkrk gSA ¼5½ tkap le; [kk| fujh{kd xq.Mjnsgh }kjk esjs dCts ls 700 yhVj feêhrsy Mªe lfgr tCr dj esjs Loa; dh lqiqnZxh es fn;k x;kA^^ Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) is not a police officer and the statement recorded by the Food Inspector vide Ex.-P/4 is admissible in evidence. 13. 13. From the above, it is apparent that the grocery shop and khalihan of the appellant were inspected by Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5). The appellant stored 700 liters kerosene illegally for selling and the appellant had no valid licence for selling the kerosene. 14. The evidence of Food Inspector Ramkishore Shukla (PW-5) is reliable and the same is supported by Banshi Lal (PW-4) and partly supported by Tularam Sahu (PW-3). It appears that the appellant stored kerosene for selling without obtaining licence and the appellant did not complied with the conditions mentioned in M.P. Kerosene (Dealer Licensing) Order, 1979. The learned Special Judge, after appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. 15. In the result, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.