ALLAN SHAH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 12.02.1986 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Rampur, by which he has found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 3 /7 of E.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment. No one appears on behalf of the appellant. Learned Additional Government Advocate is present. Record of the case is available. I have perused the record.

(2.) From the perusal of the record, I am of the view that it is not a case of conviction and, therefore, the Court proceed to decide the appeal even in the absence of learned counsel for the appellant, with the help of learned Additional Government Advocate.

(3.) It appears that on 04.01.1983 Marketing Inspector, Rampur inspected truck No. URK-6000 standing on the Bilaspur-Bareilly-Rampur Tiraha Railway Godown at about 7.30 p.m. It was found loaded with 17 bags wheat and one katta wheat weighing 17.28.500 qtls., bajra 14 bags weighing 13.96 qtls., Jowar 2 bags weighing 1.88.500 qtls. and rice 5 bags weighing 4.66 qtls. besides parchoon items in peties. Besides the truck driver, accused was found present. He asked both of them to produce the papers relating to the commodities and the licence but they did not produce. The truck was taken to the police station Civil Lines. The commodities were given in the supurdigi of Anil Kumar through memo Ex-Ka-2 and First Information Report was lodged at police station and a case was registered. Later on chargesheet was submitted after obtaining necessary sanction from the prosecution. Cognizance was taken and the accused was summoned and his statement was recorded. In his statement the accused stated that he was bona fide passenger on the truck and had nothing to do with the commodities in question; he had come to the place of his relative, Bhure Shah at Rampur, who resides at Railway quarter T-18A; after having lunch he was returning; on the settlement with the driver at Rs. 5/- as freight he was travelling in the truck; the goods did not belong to him. The prosecution has examined Sri. Rohilla on oath to prove its case. The statement of Bhure Shah as witness was also recorded. He has also affirmed the statement of the accused. It appears that the statement of the driver has not been recorded. The trial Court has held that the appellant was the owner of the goods as in the truck only the owner of the goods was permissible to travel and no one-else.