Criminal Appeal No.604-SB of 2002 v. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy A.G., Haryana

shortage detected through meter reading. Shri Dinesh Singh, Manager of the petrol pump had no explanation for these irregularities. Samples were drawn and sealed. Sample seals were pasted on all the six bottles, which were signed by all the checking officers. One sealed sample from each of the diesel tanks was handed over to the party. On the basis of the aforesaid letter, FIR Ex. PE/1 was registered against the appellant under Section 7 of the Act. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant was arrested. Upon completion of the investigation and presentation of the challan, followed by its commitment to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was charged under Section 7 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Jagdish Mittal, AFSO, PW2 Sher Singh, DFSC, PW3 Bhoj Raj, PW4 DSP D.K.Bhardwaj, PW5 L.P.S.Tomar, City Criminal Appeal No.604-SB of 2002 -3- Magistrate, Karnal, PW6 SI Bhagat Singh, PW7 Dr. Virender Singh and PW8 Nihal Singh, retired DFSC. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded false implication. In defence, he examined DW1 Constable Har Bhagwan and DW2 Parvesh Hooda, Terminal Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Karnawas. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the file, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant cannot be treated as a “dealer” as required under the Haryana Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies) Order, 1979 and, therefore, he cannot be fastened with criminal liability under Section 7 of the Act. Merely because he was the Manager or had committed the irregularities or that the samples drawn were found to be adulterated, he cannot incur any criminal liability. The word “Dealer” is defined in Section 2(a) of the aforementioned Supplies Order, which reads as follows:- “ ‘dealer’ means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of Motor Spirit or High Speed Criminal Appeal No.604-SB of 2002 -4- Diesel Oil or both but does not include an oil company.” Thus, even a cursory look at the meaning of word “Dealer” makes it clear that any person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of High Speed Diesel Oil is a dealer. It has come in the evidence that at the time of the checking the appellant was incharge of the business of the sale of the diesel. Merely because the mother of the appellant was the actual owner cannot mean that the appellant was not the dealer as it was he who was managing the affairs and liable for any irregularity found to have been committed. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant was neither the owner nor manager of the petrol pump in question nor he was present at the time of the alleged checking. He has also disowned his signatures on statement Ex.PB. However, it is in the evidence brought on the record that the petrol pump was originally owned by the father of the appellant and after the death of his father, appellant’s mother Smt. Somoti became the owner of the petrol pump. Subsequent to the death of mother of the appellant, the latter came to own the petrol pump. Further, at the time of the visit of the raiding party, the statement Ex.PB of the appellant was recorded at the spot. The said document stands proved from the testimonies of PW8 Nihal Singh, PW2 Sher Singh and PW4 DSP D.K. Bhardwaj. Simple denial by the appellant about his signatures on the statement Ex.PB would not absolve him of the liability as he took no steps to get the questioned signatures compared with his specimen Criminal Appeal No.604-SB of 2002 -5- signatures. In his statement Ex.PB, the appellant admitted deficiencies/irregularities which were noticed by the raiding party at the time of inspection of the petrol pump. At the time when he made statement Ex.PB, the premises of the appellant were under inspection and he had not been taken in police custody till then. Therefore, statement Ex.PB can be safely used against the appellant for sustaining his conviction. From the evidence brought on the record, it stands established that the appellant being manager of the petrol pump had committed various irregularities, viz. he had not displayed price of the High Speed Diesel, he had not displayed the correct position of the stock, he had not kept the jar for checking and there was shortage of 4760 litres of diesel and, thus, violated Section 3(1)(ii) of the Supply Order of 1979. Further, the samples of diesel, when analyzed at Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, were found to be adulterated as they contained approximately 60% of kerosene. The aforementioned violations committed by the appellant make him liable for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. Coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be noticed that the appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 13 years. He is not a previous offender. He is stated to be sole bread winner of his family. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of two years awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) deserves to be reduced to six months. Criminal Appeal No.604-SB of 2002 -6- Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 7(1)(a)(i) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is upheld. The sentence of imprisonment and fine, alongwith its default clause for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is reduced from two years to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine of Rs.1,000/- is, however, enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the same, the appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. November 01, 2010 satish ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE Satish Kumar 2014.04.22 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh