- (1.) N. S. Gupta, J. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 27-4-1988, passed by Sri Jhamman Lal, the then Special Judge (E. C. Act), Mainpuri in Special Trial No. 6 of 1988, confiscating the stock of oil consisting of two drums of kerosene, two drums of High Speed diesel oil and one drum mobil oil which was found in the shop of the accused ap pellant on 1-8-1989 at about 11. 00 a. m. , situate in Kasha Kuraoli, district Mainpuri by the supply inspector Sri Jamil Ahmad. It appears that the accused appellant was prosecuted for contravening the provisions of U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962, the U. P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 and the Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977, on the facts of the case the learned trial court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused appellant has contravened any such provisions. He accordingly acquitted the accused appellant for the said contravention. However, he directed that the stock of oil which was found at the shop of the accused appellant confiscated of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The accused appellant felt aggrieved by the order of confiscation of the oil in question and has come up in appeal before this Court.
(2.) I have heard Sri Braj Raj Singh, learned counsel for the accused appellant and Sri Amarjeet Singh, learned Additional Government Advo cate for the State; considered their contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It was argued by the learned" counsel for the accused appellant that the stock of 1580 litre of light diesel oil was lying at the shop of the accused appellant. He was earlier prosecuted in connection with the said stock, but was acquitted. After his acquittal the accused appellant had applied to the District Supply Officer, seeking permission for the disposal of the said light diesel oil. Instead of granting the said permission the accused appellant was again falsely implicated, in the present case. The recovery shown was false. It was argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the learned court below has believed this defence of the accused appellant and believing the same, he had acquitted the accused appellant for the contravention of the provisions of U. P. Kero sene Control Order, 1962, the U. P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 and the Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977. It is clear from the record of the case that PW 1, Sri Shi v Raj Gupta and PW 2, Sri B. S. Dubey did not state in this statement on oath before the court below that the accused appellant did not exhibit the rate list and the stock board at his shop. It was further observed by the court below that there was nothing in the statement of these witnesses to show that the accused appellant had offered the kerosene oil in question for sale. The accused appellant was not found offering to sale the kerosene oil in question to anybody and such the learned court below had recorded categorical finding on the point that the accused appellant was not guilty of contravening the provisions of any of the aforesaid Orders or law and as such he acquitted him.
(3.) WHEN on the fact of the case the learned court below found the accused appellant not guilty for contravening the provisions of any of the Order or Act and when the clear defence of the accused appellant which was duly substantiated by his own evidence on record and copy of earlier judgment that the District Supply Officer instead of giving any permission to dispose of the oil in question has again lodged the present case, I am of the opinion that there was no justification for the court below to have confiscated the oil in question. Thus the approach of the learned Special Judge for confiscation of the oil in question was bad in law. The appeal therefore, deserves to be allowed and the impugned order in so far as in relation to the confiscation of the oil in question is hereby set aside. Let the record of this case be sent to the Court below alongwith a copy of this order for needful compliance. Appeal allowed. .;