SHRIKANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 25.11.1992 passed by Sri Kapileshwar Prasad, Special Judge, (E.C. Act) Rohtas at Sasaram in G.R. No. 3016/75 of 1987/90 arising out of Kochas P.S. case No. 77/87, the sole appellant herein has preferred this appeal. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "E.C. Act") for violation of the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Unification Order") and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default whereof to suffer simple imprisonment of further two months.

(2.) The prosecution case is based on the written report submitted by one Surajdeo Tiwary, Supply Inspector, Kargahar (P.W. 1) alleging inter alia, that earlier, that day (17.12.1987) he along with the Marketing Officer, Kargahar (P.W. 2) raided the business premises of the appellant herein and in course of search in the presence of the appellant and others 400 liters of Kerosene oil stored in two drums was found in the business premises for which neither any document or license for dealing in the same could be produced. The recovered oil was seized under a seizure list prepared in the presence of Harbansh Singh (P.W. 3) and Radhika Pal (P.W. 4) and handed over to Harbansh Singh on a jimmanama. The written report requested for taking legal action against the accused under Section 7 E.C. Act for violation of the Provisions of Bihar Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1965.

(3.) The findings recorded by the Court below was sought to be assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on more than one ground. However, as I am of the view that this appeal is fit to be allowed on one ground alone as discussed herein below; it would merely be a matter of academic discussion to go into the merits of all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.