G.S. Solanki, J.@mdashThe Sessions Judge, Raisen passed the impugned judgment dated 7.8.1995 in S.T. No. 3/90 whereby Appellant has been convicted u/s 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 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 u/s 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 u/s 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 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. Section 3(3) of M.P. Sugar Dealers Licensing 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 contrary 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 defense of Appellant that because it was a rainy season and authorized 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 judgment dated 7.8.1995 passed by the trial Court is set aside and Appellant Rajesh S/o Sunderlal is acquitted to the charges leveled 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.
