RAMDAS WAMAN BAGAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under Section 3 sub-section 2 read with Section 7 sub-section 1 clause (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to suffer S.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- i.d. to suffer S.I. for one month by the Special Judge under E.C. Act, Nashik in E.C. Case No. 24 of 1994 vide Judgment and Order dated 9th August, 1995. Hence, this appeal. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:

(2.) The decoy had purchased diesel and had paid the marked denomination towards the said purchase. The appellant had returned Rs. 5/-. Panchanama was drawn. The PSI had seized the note of Rs. 50/- and 15 ltrs. of diesel which was stored in the shop of the accused, alongwith two empty drums and a funnel. The copy of the panchanama was handed over to the accused and his signatures were obtained. The PSI then reported the said raid to Khakurdi Police Station on 28th October, 1994. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 10 of 1994 was filed against the accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 28th October, 1994.

(3.) The prosecution examined 3 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. P.W. 1 is Subhash Neve who had received the secret information and had carried out the raid. He has deposed before the Court that he had received the information and had conducted raid after following due procedure. According to him, the complaint was filed on 28/10/1994. The first information report is at Exh. 8. It is elicited in the cross-examination that there are 5 to 6 shops near shop of the accused at Aghar-Phata. House of the police patil is adjacent to the shop of the accused. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he had not noted down the number on the denomination note, which was handed over to the decoy witness. According to him, the number was noted in the panchanama. He has admitted that they had not informed the police patil of village Aghar. It is further admitted that he had not gone to the police station personally to lodge the FIR. He had reduced down the complaint at Ravalgaon Police Chowky and thereafter handed over to the constable Jadhav for the purpose of registration of crime. He had sent all the relevant papers alongwith the FIR. It is admitted that muddemal article No. 2 and 5 do not bear signature of anybody. He has admitted that he and raiding party had not given personal search to the accused.