JUDGMENT
I.P. Singh, J.
1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on 1-12-1984 at about 8. A.M., the informant along with other officials of the Supply Department visited the shop of the accused and found the same was closed. On confidential enquiry, it could be gathered that on receiving information about the arrival of the Supply Department officials for inspection of the shop of the accused, he locked the shop and escaped. The notice board was incomplete and the same was hung outside of the shop. The appellant had also taken away with him the relevant papers of his business. It has been stated that on notice board only the rate of sale of sugar was mentioned. It was also written by the appellant that he was going to Mahua. The entries of articles were undated. A certified copy of the notice board was prepared in presence of the witnesses. Since, the shop of the appellant was closed and he was not found there, the shop was sealed by the informant. The Sarpanch, was entrusted with the safety of the seal. The information was given to the S.D.O. on 1-12-1984 itself in writing. As per the order of the S.D.O., the seal was broken on 4-12-1984 in presence of Mahendra Prasad Singh, Janardan Prasad Srivastava, Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police and three independent witnesses. The articles found in the shop were verified and an inventory of the articles was prepared. The seizure list was prepared in presence of independent witnesses for the articles so seized. It was further stated that even on 4-12-1984, the accused did not appear to get the articles of his shop verified. The inspection of the shop was caused as the Sarpanch had made a report that the appellant had obtained 6 quintals of sugar on 29-11-1984 and the same was sold in black market. On verification from the consumers, it transpired that they had received sugar prior to 29-11-1984. It was further stated that only 55 kilograms of sugar were found in the stock. Thus, according to the informant, 5.45 quintals of sugar had already been sold in the black market by the appellant for illegal profit. The appellant is said to have produced registers and papers including the sale register on 6-12-1984. The sale register was verified with reference to the statements of the consumers and several irregularities were detected. The sale register reflected that 5.45 quintals of sugar had been sold during the period between 29-11-1984 to 1-12-1984. On the other hand, the consumers made their statement before the informant and gave different dates prior to 29-11-1984 for purchase of sugar, Thus, according to the informant the appellant has violated the provisions of the Bihar food-grains Retail Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 and also the provisions of Bihar Sugar Dealers & Licensing Order, Bihar Kerosene Oil Dealers Licensing Order. He had also violated the provisions of Licensing order by not producing the relevant papers for inspection on demand by concerned authority.
3. On the basis of the written report of the informant a case was instituted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act against the appellant and investigation was started. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and accordingly cognizance was taken and the appellant was put on trial. Trial concluded in the manner indicated above. Appellant-pleaded not guilty.
4. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether seven witnesses. P.W. 1 is Janardan Prasad Singh, P.W. 2 is Janardan Prasad, P,W. 3 is Nawal Kishore Singh, P.W, 4 Tarini Devi, P.W. 5 is Suresh Sharma, P.W. 6 is Ram Naresh Sharma and P.W. 7 is Jainarain Singh. P.Ws. 4 and 5, namely, Tarini Devi and Suresh Sharma respectively has been tendered. P.W. 2, namely, Janardan Prasad is the informant of this case. He has fully supported the prosecution case. According to him, on the dated of occurrence on 1-12-1984 at about 8. A.M. he along with the other officials of the Supply Department went to the shop of the appellant and found it closed. On enquiry he came to know that apprehending the arrival of Supply Departmental officials in respect of shop verification, the appellant after closing the same has escaped. According to the informant, P.W. 2, the appellant had taken away the relevant papers of his business with him and the notice board was incomplete and it was hung outside the shop. The notice board was only mentioning the rate of sale of sugar. It was written by the appellant that he was going to Mahua. Entries of articles were undated. It has been stated that the informant (P.W. 2) prepared a certified copy of the notice board in presence of witnesses and the shop was sealed and Sarpanch was entrusted with the safety of the seal. The whole matter was communicated in writing to the S.D.O. on 1 -12-1984. Seal was broken as per direction of the S.D.O. on 4-12-1984 in presence of witnesses and the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. It has been stated that the articles found in the shop were verified and inventory was prepared and seizure-list was also prepared in presence of independent witnesses. According to him, on 4-12-1984 the appellant did not appear and inspection of the shop was done on the report of Sarpanch at that the appellant had obtained 6 quintals of sugar on 29-11-1984 and had sold it in black market, it has been further stated that on verification it reflected that he had received sugar prior to 29-11-1984 and only 55 k.g. sugar were found in the stock. Thus, according to the informant (P.W. 2) 5.45 quintals of sugar had been sold in the black market by the appellant for personal profit. He has further stated that as per sale register 5.45 quintals of sugar had been sold during the period between 29-11-1984 to 1-12-1984. According to him, the appellant had violated the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Retail Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 and also the provision of Bihar Sugar Dealers & Licensing Order. Other witness (P.W. 3), Nawal Kishore Singh, who is seizure list witness, has stated that he was asked to put up his signature on black paper and does not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws. 4 & 5 has tendered. P.W, 7 is also seizure list witness. He has stated that no article was seized in his presence and thus he was declared hostile. P.W. 1 has supported the version of the informant (P.W.2).
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not present in the shop and no information was given to him about the inspection of his shop. However, it appears that the raid was conducted on the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the complaint received against the appellant. As such, there was no occasion that the shop-keeper (appellant) would be informed prior to the raid. It has been also submitted on behalf of the appellant that it is wrong to allege that the appellant had sold the sugar which was lifted two days back and the fact is that between 29-11-1984 to 1-12-1984 he had distributed 5.45 quintals of sugar among the customers. But the raiding party did not receive any register showing the distributing of the same among the customers. That apart, there was no cash-memo in support of alleged distribution of sugar among the customers. According to the Assistant Supply Officer, who is the informant and one of the members of the raiding party in the present case, the customers, when enquired by him in connection with the so claimed distribution of sugar did not support the version of the appellant that they received sugar between 29-11-1984 to 1-12-1984.
6. The appellant is the owner of the shop running under the provisions of the Public Distribution System has to abide by the order of the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and he is also expected to follow the inordarsion given to him which he has violated by not distributing the sugar, so lifted, which was to be distributed among the customers. As such, the Court below, on appreciation of the evidence, so adduced, has rightly convicted the appellant under the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. I see no reason to interfere with the conviction awarded to the appellant in the present case.
7. However, coming to the question of Sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1984 i.e. about 19 years ago and since then the appellant has been sufficiently punished during the prolonged litigation. He also submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and any previous conviction. As such it requires consideration on point of sentence.
8. Having regard to the submission, so raised, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be meet if the appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 (five hundred) to be deposited by him within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In default, he shall undergo S.I. for a period of one month.
With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the Criminal appeal is dismissed.