1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR
(M.P.)
Criminal Appeal No. 1153/95
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. Solanki
Rajesh S/o Sunderlal Vishwakarma, aged about 22
years, Welding Shop, R/o. Noorpura Silwani, P.S.
Silwani, District Raisen
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Police Station
Silwani
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. Usmani, Advocate for the appellant..
Ku. Kamlesh Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent.
Date of hearing: 27/01/2011
Date of Judgment: 01/02/2011
JUDGMENT
The Sessions Judge, Raisen passed the
impugned judgment dated 7.8.1995 in S.T. No. 3/90
whereby appellant has been convicted under Section
3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for
contravention of Section 3(3) of the M.P. Sugar Dealers
Licensing Order, 1963 and sentenced to Rigorous
Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/-
with default stipulations.
2. Prosecution case in short is that on
8.6.1990 Head Constable, Rajesh Singh (PW6),
received an information that sugar of Government
2
Fare Price Shop, which was issued to co-accused
Leeladhar for distribution to the public was illegally
kept in the house of appellant Rajesh Vishwakarma.
Rajesh Singh (PW6) after having recorded Rojnamch
Sanha, reached to the house of appellant Rajesh
Vishwakarma and found five bags of sugar in his
house, same was seized vide Ex.P/8 in presence of
Panch Witnesses. The said sugar was weighed and
found four quintal and thirty eight kilograms.
Panchnama Ex.P/6 was prepared in this regard.
Thereafter, an offence was registered under Section
3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the
appellant and co-accused Leeladhar.
3. After usual investigation, both the accused
were charge-sheeted before Sessions Court. Leeladhar
was died during trial and case was abated against
him.
4. Learned trial Judge framed the charge
under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act
against the appellant/accused.
5. Appellant/accused abjured the guilt and
pleaded that he has been falsely implicated.
6. After recording the evidence, trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as
mentioned hereinabove.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant
3
submitted that trial Court overlooked the evidence on
record as well as the M.P. Sugar Dealers Licensing
Order, 1963 in which possession of less than fifty
quintals of sugar cannot be said to be illegal and
presumption that the sugar was stored for the
purpose of sale cannot be raised in the cases where
the sugar found less than fifty quintals.
8. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State supported and justified the impugned judgment.
9. I have perused the impugned judgment,
evidence and other material on record.
10. Rajesh Singh (PW6) is a witness, who seized
sugar from the house of appellant/accused Rajesh
Vishwakarma which was four quintals and thirty eight
kilograms as per seizure memo Ex.P/6. Rajesh Singh
further deposed that the appellant/accused told him
that this sugar was kept by Leeladhar.
11. Keshav Prasad Chourasia (PW3) deposed
that this sugar was issued to Leeladhar (since
deceased) for distribution at fare price shop. Keshav
Prasad Chourasia admitted in his cross-examination
that at the relevant time there was a rainy season and
due to rain the roads of the village were in bad
conditions.
12. Section3(3) of M.P. Sugar Dealers Licensing
4
Order, 1963 reads as follows; Thus,
“3. Licensing of Dealers.-
1. xxx xxx xxx
2. xxx xxx xxx
3. For the purpose of this
clause, any person who stores
sugar in any quantity
exceeding 50 quintals at any
one time shall, unless the
countrary is proved, be
deemed to store the sugar for
the purpose of sale.”
13. On bare perusal of aforesaid sub-clause(3)
reveals that burden of proof shifted on accused when
he found in possession of sugar of quantity exceeding
50 quintals but in this case sugar found in possession
of the appellant/accused is only 4 quintals and 38 kg.
It means trial Judge has not considered the relevant
provision of law at the time of passing of the impugned
judgment.
14. Even otherwise defence of appellant that
because it was a rainy season and authorised dealer
Leeladhar stored the disputed sugar in the house of
the present appellant due to rains and bad conditions
of the roads, means of convenience were not available
to transport the same to the village Dabri, Nagpura
appears to be probable, in the light of admission of
Keshav Prasad Chourasia (PW3).
15. In these circumstances, the appeal
succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned
5
judgment dated 7.8.1995 passed by the trial Court is
set aside and appellant Rajesh S/o Sunderlal is
acquitted to the charges levelled against him.
16. Accused/appellant is on bail, his bail bonds
stand discharged.
17. The fine amount deposited by the
appellant, if any, be refunded back.
(G.S. Solanki)
JUDGE
ravi