GOTAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. Kashinath Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mathur, Public Prosecutor along with the Enforcement Inspector.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that Girdharilal and Ram Chandra were fair price shop dealers. They obtained certain quantity of wheat under permits dated Aug. 14, 1985 and Aug. 20, 1985 from Scheduled Tribes Corporation, Udaipur and instead of distributing the food grain at the fair price shop sold it to firm Lalchand Kapurchand at Rs. 175.00 per quintal. The goods were seized when it was being unloaded at the shop of Motilal and Kistoorchand. It was alleged that Gautamlal was also present at that time.

(3.) The Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jodhpur by his order dated May 2, 1987 discharged Kistoorchand, Girdharilal and Ram Chandra. However, he came to the conclusion that charge should be framed against Motilal and Gautamlal under section 3 read with section 7 and section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act. Both Gautam Lai and Motilal have filed revisions Nos. 125 and 135 of 1987, against the order of the Special Judge. It was contented by Mr. Kashi Nath Joshi appearing on behalf of both the petitioners that admittedly the fair price shop dealer were Girdharilal and Ramchandra and both of them have been discharged by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jodhpur. It was argued that even if the case of the prosecution is taken to be correct, it were Girdharilal and Ramchandra who had violated the Rajasthan Food-grains and other Easential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 and not the petitioners. Both Girdharilal and. Ramchandra have been discharged by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jodhpur and no charge could be framed against the petitioners for the above offence. It was also pointed out that section 7 provides punishment for contravention of any Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act. In the order of the Special Judge, it has nowhere been pointed out that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of any Order issued by the Government under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.