- (1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 19-7-2004 passed by Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act (henceforth 'the Act'), Surguja in Special Case No. 1/2000. By the impugned judgment, the appellants/accused persons Chandan Das Bangali and Shambhu Sarkar have been convicted under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The case of the prosecution, in brief is as under:-- On the 10-2-1998 at about 3 p.m. R.R. Poya (PW-6), the Food Inspector, Surajpur along with Assistant Food Officer J.S. Tirki and Food Inspector S.P. Shrivastava, K.S. Nag and J.R. Thakur inspected the hotel of the appellants. During inspection, appellant Shambhu Sarkar was present there. Appellant Chandan Das Bangali was owner of the hotel and he was not present in the hotel during the inspection. In absence of appellant Chandan Das Bangali, appellant Shambhu Sarkar was conducting the business of hotel of appellant Chandan Das Bangali. During the search, 200 liters blue kerosene was found in a drum and in another drum 50 liters of blue kerosene was found, i.e. total 250 liters of blue kerosene was found stored by the appellant without license in violation of the clause 5 of the 'Kerosene Ke Upyog Par Nirbandhan Avam Adhiktam Mulya Nivartan Aadesh, 1993'. During the investigation, panchnama (Ex. P/3) was prepared and kerosene was seized vide Ex. P/4 from appellant Shambhu Sarkar and detailed report Ex. P/19 was prepared by R.R. Poya (PW-6) and he submitted the said report to the Collector. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge under the Act, Surguja (Ambikapur), who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.
(2.) Shri Shakri Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Special Judge erred in holding the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He further argued that the kerosene was not seized from the premises of the appellants. Food Inspector R.R. Poya (PW-6) specifically admitted that the kerosene was seized from premises which is adjacent to the hotel of the appellants. Therefore, exclusive possession of the appellants was not proved. Evidence of R.R. Poya (PW-6) is not corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. The prosecution has not been able to make out any offence against the appellants, therefore, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges framed against them.
(3.) On the other hand, Shri A.K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants to do not call for any interference by this Court.;