SULOCHANA RAMCHANDRA MOHITE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant by the learned Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act (for short "EC Act") at Sangli for the offence punishable under Clause 6 of the Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order, 1970 r/w Section 3(2)(h)(ii) r/w Section 7(1)(ii) of the EC Act and sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 300/- or in default simple imprisonment for one month imposed upon the appellant on conclusion of trial of Criminal Case No. 8 of 1991 before him. The learned Judge held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant sold kerosene at excess rate or in black-market. But he held that the prosecution proved that the appellant had not maintained stock register and sale register of kerosene properly. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:

(2.) Charge of offences punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 7 of the EC Act was framed at Exhibit-2. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, she was put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all six witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellant. After considering the evidence in the light of the defence raised, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both I have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tahsildar was annoyed with the appellant because his orders cancelling the licence of the appellant were set aside by the Revenue Commissioner in the past and therefore falsely prosecuted the appellant. He submitted that the Superintendent of Wanless Hospital, who was examined as PW-4, too, had an axe to grind and therefore connived with the Tahsildar to have the appellant falsely framed. The question here is not whether the appellant was falsely framed but whether the appellant could show that she had kept the stock register and the sale register. The Form of hawkers' licence prescribed under Clause 5(2) of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966 itself provides that the licensee shall maintain true and proper accounts of all purchases and sales of kerosene and issue cash memo to customers purchasing kerosene. The licence also provides for inspection of the stocks of kerosene and accounts of kerosene on demand. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the relevant registers were not seized under a proper panchnama and therefore since the seizure itself was not proper, the charge of the appellant of not having kept the stocks and accounts of kerosene must fail. Whether the registers were seized under a proper panchnama or not may not be relevant. It was for the appellant to show that in the registers so seized, she had maintained proper accounts of the stock of kerosene which was allotted to her. She could also have produced the other set of registers which she had if the registers seized by the Tahsildar were not the proper registers. Rather than doing so, the appellant was content at taking a stand that she was not at all required to maintain such registers. In cross-examination of the Tahsildar, who was examined as PW-3, a specific suggestion was made to the Tahsildar that it was not the responsibility of the hawker to maintain stock register and distribution register. The Tahsildar denied this suggestion. Thus it is clear that the appellant had not maintained the stock register and the distribution register because she considered that it was not her responsibility. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is illiterate and therefore her failure to maintain the registers on a day-to-day basis may be condoned. He also submitted that the appellant had in fact sought help of an assistant which was not granted by the Tahsildar. These grounds cannot be entertained. If the appellant wants to do business, she must comply with the terms of the licence and since she had not kept the accounts of the kerosene which was allotted to her, the order passed by the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted. The learned trial Judge has not imposed any excessive fine or a harsh sentence upon the appellant and, therefore, the sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 3007-, which is nominal, also does not call for an interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.