Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2015 DIGILAW 1097 (SC)

Shameem Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-08-27

ARUN MISHRA, H.L.DATTU, N.V.RAMANA

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of 2001 (Old No. 947 of 1988), dated 20.06.2008 whereby the High Court upheld the judgment of conviction and modified the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in Special Criminal Case No. 6 of 1987, dated 07.04.1988. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant was in charge of the go-down of the UP Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd., Kotdwar Branch (for short, "the Corporation"). On 26.08.1996, the stocks and records of the said Kotdwar Branch were inspected by the Regional Food Officer together with other officials. During the inspection, inter alia it was found that the rate and stock had not been exhibited on the board hanging in the shop, 77.89 quintals of unlicensed non-levy sugar had been stored in the go-down and certain sales in the sales records were forged. After inspection thereof, the Regional Food Officer filed a report before the S.O., Kotdwar on the basis of which an FIR was filed. 2. Subsequently, the investigation was completed and the charges were framed against the Appellant for offences Under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"). The Appellant pleaded not guilty and the case was committed to trial. 3. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses, while no witnesses were produced by the defense. The Appellant's statement was recorded Under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") wherein he stated that he had been falsely implicated. 4. The Trial Court considered the evidence on record as also the arguments of the parties and noticed that the Appellant had admitted that the product being sold by him was "sugar" within the meaning of the Act and that the prosecution had been able to prove that the accused had applied for issuance of license two days after the date of the raid. It further rejected the Appellant's contention that, in the light of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, the Appellant could not be prosecuted since the Corporation, which was his employer, was not being prosecuted. Further, the testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 3 had proven that the sale records were forged. It further rejected the Appellant's contention that, in the light of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, the Appellant could not be prosecuted since the Corporation, which was his employer, was not being prosecuted. Further, the testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 3 had proven that the sale records were forged. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that the Appellant had contravened the provisions of U.P. Sugar & Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962 (for short "the 1962 Order") and the U.P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks & Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977 (for short "the 1977 Order"). The Trial Court by judgment and order dated 07.04.1988 convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year for contravention of Clause 7 of the 1977 Order and simple imprisonment for one day for contravention of Clause 3 of the 1962 Order, and Under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence by the Trial Court, the Appellant/accused preferred Criminal Appeal before the High Court. 6. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and noticed that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses had conclusively established that the Appellant had forged the sale records. The High Court further rejected the Appellant's contention that the product being sold by the Appellant was not "sugar" as defined in the Act and the 1962 Order. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the Appellant's guilt had been conclusively established and there was no reason to interfere with the order of conviction and the sentence passed by the Trial Court. However, taking into consideration the nature of offence, Appellant's advanced age and the fact that the incident had occurred 22 years ago, the High Court reduced the sentence imposed on the Appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the Appellant is before us in this appeal. 8. We have heard Shri K.K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Atif Suhrawardy, learned Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the obligation to obtain the necessary license rests on his employer, i.e., the Corporation, and not on him. 8. We have heard Shri K.K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Atif Suhrawardy, learned Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the obligation to obtain the necessary license rests on his employer, i.e., the Corporation, and not on him. The Appellant had been acting on the directions of his employer and, therefore, he cannot be held liable for the sale of unlicensed sugar from the said go-down. Per contra, the Respondent-State would support the judgment and order passed by the High Court. 10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below as well as the evidence on record, the Appellant's case fails to convince us. There is sufficient evidence on record that the Appellant had sold sugar, an essential commodity at a higher price, to individuals who were not entitled to the same and, to this end, had forged the entries of the sale records. In light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and does not require our interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Ordered Accordingly.