RAJIBHAI T CHOITANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1988-9-11
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 30,1988

Rajibhai T. Choitani Appellant
VERSUS
State of Gujarat and Others Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SOMDAS VS. MOHANLAL [LAWS(GJH)-2000-3-119] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL DINESH KUMAR SHIVRAM SOMDAS VS. PATEL KESHAVLAL MOHAN LAL [LAWS(GJH)-2000-3-120] [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI BHIMJIBHAI PANCHAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GODHRA [LAWS(GJH)-1989-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD VS. S K GHADVI [LAWS(GJH)-2000-12-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.S.KAPADIA - (1.)The petitioner-detenu has filed the present petition against the impugned order of detention passed against him by the District Magistrate Bhavnagar on 2-6-1988 under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act 1980 The petitioner was served with the order as also ground of detention on the same day i. e. 2-6-1988.
(2.)On persual of the grounds it appears that the present petitioner was managing the fair price shop in Bhavnagar locality of Bhavnagar City which was standing in the name of Jikarbhai Ahmedbhai Saiyed. On 5-5-1988 the Supply Inspector made a surprise visit to the said shop and inspected the same. During the inspection it was found that the opening stock of pamolene oil in the stock register was shown as six barrels i. e. 1140 kgs. while in the presence of Panchas when it was ascertained it was found that the stock was of 760 ks. i. e. only four barrels and therefore there was a deficit of 380 kgs. i. e. two barrels of pamolene. Before the Supply Inspector the petitioner had stated that he had taken the stock of six barrels from the godown of the Corporation but the remaining two barrels were not delivered by the labourer Narubhai Sindhi till late in the evening. He had also stated in his statement of 5-5-1988 that he was managing the said shop. Jikarbhai who is the licencee of the said fair price shop has supported the version of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was managing the said shop in his statement dated 8-5-1988.
(3.)The statement of Narubhai Lalchand was also recorded on 5 wherein he has clearly stated that on 4-5-1988 he has delivered all the six barrels of pamolene oil to the petitioner. According to him he had taken six barrels from the godown of the Corporation in two instalments inasmuch as it was not possible for him to take six barrels at a time in a three whether tempo. According to him first he delivered four barrels and thereafter he delivered two barrels at the said shop. Even search was made at the residence of said Narubhai in the presence of the Panchas but neither any tin nor any barrel containing pamolene was found. It is also pointed out in the grounds that the petitioner was not in a position to explain as to why there was deficit of two barrels of pamolene in the actual stock when he had already credited six barrels in the stock register. It is also pointed out in the grounds that he was a dealer within the definition given under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licence Control and Stock Declaration) Order 198 1
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.