State v. Hakim Singh U & Anr.

purchased from Firm Kamal Kumar Ashok Kumar, Jwalapur. He produced the purchase vouchers, which are available on record as Ex.Ka. 1 and 2. 15- This witness has further deposed that the recovery proceedings took place in the presence of P.W. – 2 Pushkar Singh who is the local fair price food grain dealer and they recovered Atta entrusted to the custody of P.W. 2 Pushkar Singh. 16- The deposition of P.W. – Pushkar Singh shows that he was caught at the shop by the Food Inspector soon after he found wheat floor stock in the shop in excess of the statutory limit of 10 quintal. This witness has also deposed that 18 full bags of Atta were lying found in the outer side of the shop, while 30 kg of Atta was recovered in the open bag outer side of the shop for retail sale. 17- I could not find any infirmity in the evidence of both the prosecution witnesses, which may create any doubt with regard to their credibility. It was the appellant – Parbinder Singh who was managing the affair of the shop at the time of the surprise inspection conducted by the Food Inspector. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary this appellant is also to be held as owner of the recovered Atta from the shop. 18- The defence has examined D.W. 1 – Alam Gujar and this witness has deposed that he in fact purchased 10 bags of Atta for his own use, which was kept in the shop of the appellant. But the deposition of this witness appears to be highly doubtful. This witness has admittedly never requested any authority releasing of his Atta as owner of the same. This witness also could not disclose the rate in which the Atta was purchased. He also could not disclose the total price paid by him for purchase of the 10 bags of Atta. Therefore, the defence witness produced by accused/appellants is not going to extend any help to them. 19- Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the sanctioning authority i.e. District Magistrate has not disclosed the relevant order which is alleged to have been contravened in the sanctioning order dated 28.10.1986. 20- This argument is also devoid of any force. It is true that the sanctioning order does not indicate the order which is alleged to have been violated but at the same time it is to be noted that in the First Information Report it is quite clear that the Food Inspector has mentioned the violation of the U.P. Food Grain Dealers Licenceing (Restriction and Hoarding Order), 1976 as amended has been committed which is punishable under Section 3 (7) of the Essential Commodities Act. 21- Further the specific questions were put to the accused/appellants they had violated provisions of U.P. Food Grains Delears Licenceing (Restriction and Hoarding Order), 1976, which punishable under Section 3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, in case, if the relevant order is not mentioned by sanctioning authority in the order for granting the sanction, the same is not going to vitiate the trail as it was in the knowledge of the accused/appellants that they had been charged for the violation of the U.P. Food Grains Dealers Licenceing (Restriction and Hoarding Order), 1976 which punishable under Section 3 (7) of the Essential Commodities Act. 22- On the basis of the evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that the appellants have been rightly convicted by the special judge, Pauri Garhwal for having committed the contravention of the provisions of U.P. Food Grains Dealer Licenceing Order, 1977 which is punishable under Section 3 (2) (d) read with Section 7(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 23- Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that since the matter is quite old, hence, some leniency be adopted in the sentence of the appellants. 24- I again do not find any force in this argument. The trial court has awarded minimum sentence to the appellant which does not required any interference. 25- I do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the trail court convicting and sentencing the appellants by way of the impugned judgment dated

01.08.1986 and the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal deserved to be confirmed. 26- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 1-8-1986 passed by Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Special Criminal Case No. 3 of 1986 is hereby confirmed. 27- Let the record be immediately sent back to the court concerned for compliance for the order. Dated: July 25, 2006 Aswal (B.C. Kandpal, J.)