Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 33 (PAT)

Arun Kumar Verma v. State Of Bihar

2013-01-08

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2013
ORAL JUDGMENT This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 24.05.2000 passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Darbhanga in Trial No. 14 of 1999 by which and whereunder learned Special Judge, Darbhanga convicted the appellant under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also imposed rupees one hundred as fine and furthermore, it was directed that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W.3, Sri Navin Chandra Jha, the then Block Development Officer, Darbhanga gave a written report to officer in charge of Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga to this effect that on 18.11.1987, he inspected the business premises of the appellant and found that appellant had no license to run his business premises nor he had possessed any cash memo and stock register. Furthermore, P.W.3 found that there was no any notice board at the shop to disclose the correct stock position. In course of inspection, he seized six bags of seed of wheat, thirteen bags of urea, six bags of potash, three bags of amonium sulphate, three bags of phosphate, two bags of D.A.P. 200, quintals of Andi Khalli, six packets of seed of maize (pioneer) and three packets of seed of maize (Lakshmi). 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 138 of 1987 under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act was registered against the appellant. The matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Later on, cognizance was taken and the appellant was put on trial. The substance of accusation was explained to the appellant. The appellant denied the accusation levelled against him and pleaded his innocence. 4. In course of trial, prosecution examined, altogether, four witnesses. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he stated that earlier he had possessed license for running fertilizer shop and he used to run fertilizer shop with his partner. He further stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that at the time of inspection his partner was running the shop in question. No evidence was adduced by the appellant in support of his defence. 5. Learned counsel Ms. He further stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that at the time of inspection his partner was running the shop in question. No evidence was adduced by the appellant in support of his defence. 5. Learned counsel Ms. Archana Sinha appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidences available on the record. She further submitted that there is nothing in the first information report as well as in the charge sheet to show as to which order was violated and, therefore, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is not applicable in this case. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that in course of trial almost all the witnesses have supported the prosecution story and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant. 7. On perusal of record, it is clear that altogether four prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution and out of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, P.W.3., Navin Chandra Jha is informant of this case. This witness proved the factum of recovery from the business premises of the appellant and the statement of P.W.3. is corroborated by P.W.2., who accompanied the P.W.3. at the time of alleged recovery. Moreover, the factum of recovery has not been denied by the appellant rather he took stand that the business premises in question was being run by his partner at the time of alleged occurrence but he did not adduce any evidence to prove the aforesaid fact. No doubt, neither in the first information report nor in substance of accusation it was mentioned as to which order was violated but admittedly, fertilizer was recovered from the business premises of the appellant and at the time of aforesaid recovery he had no valid license to sell the seized fertilizer and, therefore, the appellant was fully aware of this fact that he violated Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere into the impugned judgment of conviction and I am also of the view that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. 8. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere into the impugned judgment of conviction and I am also of the view that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. 8. So far as order of sentence is concerned, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also fine of rupees one hundred was imposed upon him and, furthermore, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days in default of payment of fine but learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1987 and the impugned judgment was pronounced in the year 2000 and, therefore, near about thirteen years have already been elapsed and so a lenient view should be taken against the appellant. 9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the order of sentence is modified to this extent that the period already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice and, accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification. Appeal dismissed.