H. N. Kapoor, J. - (1.) RAM Prasad has been convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000/- which was reduced to Rs. 500/- in appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1972) by the Sessions Judge Etawah by his order dated 8-5-1972.
(2.) THE prosecution allegations are that Ram Prasad held a licence for dealing with Vanaspati Ghee at his shop in Mohalla Homesganj. He had no licence for storing it at his residence in Mohalla Akalganj. THE District Supply Officer inspected his shop and his house on 9-3-1970 and found 192 tins of 16.5 Kilograms of Vanaspati Ghee stored at his house. At his shop he had found only 6 such tins although in the Stock Register the opening balance was shown as 200 tins of vegetable oil of 16.5 kgs. besides 29 tins of 4 Kilograms, 64 tins of 2 Kilograms. THE District Supply Officer sent a report to the police. It was also alleged that he had maintained a Stock Register at his shop but did not maintain Sale Register or Cash Memo. The defence of the applicant was that he had applied for licence to carry on business at his house also. A F. I. R. was also filed showing that there has been a theft at his shop. The F. I. R. could not be proved. The application too could not be proved, although a certificate of posting is on the record. Learned Sessions Judge found that the applicant was maintaining Sale Registers and issuing Cash Memo. The offence which was said to have been proved against him was that he had kept 192 tins at his house in Mohalla Akalganj for which he had no licence.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has argued that under Clause 3 of the U. P. Vanaspati Dealers Licencing Order, 1969 a separate licence is necessary for each place of business, but there is nothing to show that the applicant was carrying on business at his house in Akalganj. According to him all that can be said is that he had stored 192 tins of 16.5 Kilograms at his house. It is significant that in the opening Stock he had shown 200 tins while 192 of such tins were found at his house. He had thus not suppressed the Stock. He had also not prevented the District Supply Officer from inspecting his stock at his house. The original licence granted to him has not been exhibited in the case. A cyclostyled copy of the licence form is on the file. There is nothing to show that a licence holder is prevented from storing his Stock at his house. It would have been a different matter in case he had not included the Stock which was at his house in the Stock Register. The condition of the licence shows that he would give such information to the authorities as required. There is nothing to show that the person did not give information to the authorities that he had stored a major part of his Stock at his house, when required. In the circumstances of the case, I do not think that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the applicant. The revision is allowed, and the orders of the lower courts are set aside and the applicant is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. The fine if realised shall be refunded. Revision allowed.;