SUKHU SAHU AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sukhu Sahu and Ayodhaya Prasad Sahu, both residents of Seraikella, District Singhbum, the appellants, stand convicted under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act because of their alleged contravention of the relevant provisions of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Price and Stocks) Order, 1977, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Feeling aggrieved, they have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution version, in brief, is that Sukhu Sahu and Ayodhya Prasad Sahu appellants, hawker licensees, for selling kerosene oil, were distributed 100 litres and 50 litres of kerosene oil at about 10 A.M. on 2-8-1985 for being sold in weekly market, Seraikella on that very date. At about 4 p.M. on that date, Ram Bilash Sharma PW, Supply Inspector and Ram Chandra Ram PW, the Marketing Officer, had fauna that Sukhu appellant was not selling kerosene oil. On enquiry as to where Sukhu Sahu appellant had kept that oil, the latter had taken them to the house of his co-appellant Ayodhaya Prasad Sahu from where appellant Sukhu Sahu's 100 litres of kerosene oil was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. 1. The prosecution's accusation against Sukhu Sahu appellant is that he had contravened the conditions of his licence by not selling kerosene oil in the weekly market, and, therefore, had made himself liable under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) Although the appellants had denied the prosecution allegations, but assuming the same to be true, no criminal liability can be fastened on them. As the prosecution charge against Sukhu Sahu appellant was regarding his contravening the terms and conditions of his licence, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have produced at trial that licence for showing as to if any condition was there in the licence prescribing that appellant to sell kerosene oil at a particular place in the manner specified in the same. However, that was not done. Therefore, it is anybody's guess as to if Sukhu Sahu appellant had actually contravened any of the conditions of his licence. Then as regard Ayodhaya Prasad Sahu appellant, the complainant (PW. 3)has not stated even a word against him in evidence. On the basis of the material available or record, the conviction of the appellants in the case was un-called for, and the same deserves to be set aside.