RAJENDRA PALERAM AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay by his Judgment and order dated 23-2-1988 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to suffer R. I. for three months on two counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 300,:" in default to suffer R. I. for 15 days, on both counts. The substantive sentences have been made concurrent.

(2.) THE appeal was admitted on 12-4-1988. It has been pending since then. The application dated 7/07/1992 was received from the appellant stating therein that during the last three months his financial position has gone bad to worst and he was unable to survive in this city. He further stated that his entire family is suffering from great hardship and he was without a job. Hence, he prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and sought permission to surrender before the Court to undergon the remaining period of sentence, whereafter he wanted to leave Bombay. I instantly realized that the application was the result of frustration and great hardship that was being faced by the appellant and therefore thought instead of allowing him to withdraw the appeal and undergo the sentence, not as a matter of repentence but due to sheer force of adverse circumstances, I requested Mr. Tirodkar to assist the Court on merits and meanwhile seek instructions from the appellant. Accordingly, the hearing of the appeal was fixed and the appellant is present in the Court today.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution against the appellant was, briefly stated, as follows: the appellant was running a ration shop in the name an style of Laxmi Stores at Narsipada, Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (East), Bombay. On 23-1-1985 Rationing Inspector Sanap visited the shop. He called upon vijendra brother of the appellant who was in the shop to produce his ration card. Said vijendra produced two ration cards and the particulars therefrom revealed that some names were shown common in both the ration cards. It was therefore alleged that by furnishing false information the appellant had obtained double ration for his family members. Hence, it was alleged that he had contravened the provisions of clause 18 (a) of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing (Second) Order, 1966 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was also allegd that he had contravened clause 18 (b) of the said Order. Since these contraventions were punishable he was prosecuted. The defence of the appellant was that he held only one ration card and he was not concerned with the second ration card and he had committed no offence. Clause 18 (a) of the Maharashtra food grains Rationing (Second) Order, 1966 prohibits applying for duplicate ration card and provides that no person shall dishonestly apply for or reveive more than one ration card, if he knows or has reason to believe that his name is already included in any other ration card issued to any household. Clause 18 (b) provides that no person shall obtain a ration card by furnishing false information. Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 makes punishable contravention of any order made under section 3 of the Act. The above mentioned Foodgrains Rationing Order, 1966 was issued by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and other enabling powers.