Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 16 (UTT)

RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-01-08

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 12.09.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and judgment and order dated 01.10.2008 passed by Commissioner, Kumaon Division whereby fair price shop license of the petitioner was cancelled. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 30.11.2006 truck no. UA 06 F 8333 was intercepted and checked; on checking, truck was found carrying 22 bags of wheat and 79 bags of rice; at the time of giving signal to stop, truck driver ran away from the spot; believing thagrains (wheat and rice) were being transported illegally, an FIR was got registered with the police station 30.11.2006; after some time Baldev Singh – driver of the truck no. UA 06 F 8333 made statement before the Joint Magistrate, Bazpur and Investigating Officer to the effect that he was carrying wheat and rice, in his truck, loaded from the fair price shop of the petitioner; thereafter, petitioner was challaned in criminal case filed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act; license of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate solely on the basis of statement made by Baldev Singh – driver of truck no. UA 06 F 8333 and order of cancellation of license of fair price shop of petitioner was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 3. It is important to note here that petitioner stood acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the criminal case, which was initiated on the basis of statement made by Baldev Singh – driver of the truck no. UA 06 F 8333. It means that it has not been proved that wheat and rice found in truck no. UA 06 F 8333 were loaded from the shop of the petitioner on the instruction or in the knowledge of petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to prove that stock of the petitioner was ever checked with the stock register to find out that bags of the wheat and rice were found short in the fair price shop. Nor it is a case of the respondents that bags of wheat and rice allegedly found in the truck were the same which were supplied to the petitioner for distribution. Therefore, both the impugned orders do not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are hereby quashed. Nor it is a case of the respondents that bags of wheat and rice allegedly found in the truck were the same which were supplied to the petitioner for distribution. Therefore, both the impugned orders do not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.