O.P.Pradhan - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.3.1984 passed by the Special Judge, Gonda in Special Case No. 12 of 1983 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- in default whereof to undergo fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a brief compass. THE appellant had a licence to sell kerosene oil tin village Juwa and the shop where he was authorised to sell the kerosene oil in the said village, was specified with boundaries, in the said licence. Sri Aram Singh, Supply Inspector, Balrampur made a surprise inspection of this shop on 19.2.1983 at about 11 a.m. but he did not find any such shop at the specified place in the licence. He was informed by the residents of the said village that the appellant was selling kerosene oil in the cane-godown which was at a distance of a kilometre from village Juwa. Accordingly the Supply Inspector went there and found Ganga Ram at the cane godown, Ganga Ram is the son of appellant: and he also told the Supply Inspector that the kerosene oil was being sold by his lather at the cane godown. THE Supply Inspector checked the stock register and found the kerosene oil in accordance with the stock register. Some villagers also complained to the Supply Inspector that the appellant was selling kerosene oil at Rs. 2.20 per litre. A written report was lodged by Supply Inspector at P. S. Balrampur Kotwali the very same day. Investigation followed and after getting sanction for the prosecution of the appellant, Investigaing Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 27.8.1983. The prosecution examined Vijay Bahadur P.W. 1, Ram Yash P.W. 2. S.I. Aram Singh P.W. 3 and Jang Bahadur Singh P.W. 4 in support of its case. The appellant denied the accusation levelled against him and pleaded false implication. He also examined Ganga Ram D.W. 1 in his defence. On a consideration of the material and the circumstances placed on record, the learned Special Judge came to find that the appellant was selling kerosene oil at a place other than the one specified on the licence granted to him for the sale of kerosene oil. He accordingly convicted the appellant and sentenced him as already indicated at the outset. Feeling aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed by the convict Ganga Ram. I have heard learned counsel of the appellant as also the learned Government Advocate and perused the record. It is clearly established from the evidence of Vijay Bahadur P.W. 1 and Ram Yash P.W. 2 that the appellant was selling kerosene oil at the cane-godown of village Juwa at the relevant time. This part of their testimony has remained unshaken in their cross-examination. Supply Inspector Aram Singh P.W. 3 also deposed that he did not find the appellant selling the kerosene oil at the place specified in the licence but that he was found having stored and selling the kerosene oil at cane-godown which is at a distance of about one kilometre from the place which was specified in the licence. Not only this, Ganga Ram D.W. 1 has also stated that the appellant had started selling kerosene oil at the cane-godown after he was evicted from the shop where he was authorised to sell] the kerosene oil. Thus it is amply proved that the appellant was selling kerosene oil at cane-godown which was quite different from the place specified in the licence granted to the appellant for the purpose. During his examination, the appellant also did not categorically deny that he was selling the kerosene oil at the cane-godown at the relevant time, when the Supply Inspector made a surprise inspection. Accordingly the conviction recorded by the Special Judge on this count is well founded and is liable to be maintained in appeal.
(3.) THE next question remains about the sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the appellant is not a previous convict and that he had to change the place for selling the kerosene oil, in consequence of the appellant having been evicted from the shop where he was authorised to sell the kerosene oil. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that he had good quantity of kerosene oil at his disposal which he could not allow to be gone astray. THE appellant, according to the learned counsel, had also moved the authorities concerned for the change of place in the licence and in the meantime had started selling kerosene oil to the consumers in all good faith and for the benefit of the public at large. THE learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, pleaded for reduction in sentence. It is on record that the appellant had been evicted from the house by his landlord and that it was in a room of this house that the appellant was authorised to sell kerosene oil under the licence granted to him. It is also in evidence that the appellant was found to have 550 litres of kerosene oil in store at the time the Supply Inspector made surprise inspection on 19.2.1983. Unfortunately, the place in the licence had not been changed by then and according to the appellant, he started selling the kerosene oil from the cane- godown in all good faith for the benefit of the public at large lest they should suffer for want of kerosene oil. In the facts and circumstances indicated above, it appears fit and proper that the sentence of three months' R.I. is reduced to two months' R.I. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the trial court is liable to be maintained and it is intimated by the learned counsel for the appellant that this fine has already been deposited by the appellant.;