KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) APPELLANT Babu Lal son of Ram Udit has filed the present criminal appeal on being aggrieved against the judgment dated 28.11.1997 passed by learned Special Judge, Chandigarh, whereby he has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "the Act 1955") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(2.) BABU Lal appellant was charged by learned Special Judge, Chandigarh on 7.5.1996. That in the area of Motor Market, Manimajra, on 9.11.1994 he was found in possession of one half drum having 30 liters of kerosene oil, along with one measurement of five liters and one funnel for the purpose selling of kerosene oil without any valid licence in contravention of the provisions of Punjab Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 (as applicable to Union Territory, Chandigarh) (for short "the Order 1966"), and thereby he had committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act 1955. Briefly stated, Deep Singh Sandhu, Inspector, Food and Supplies Department, U.T. Chandigarh, sent a written complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station Manimajra that as directed by the District Food and Supplies Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, in order to supervise the sale of public distribution of kerosene oil at Manimajra, he along with Sarv Shri Amar Nath, Kamal Kailash and S.P. Manchanda, Inspectors, Food and Supplies Department, U.T. Chandigarh, along with police assistance headed by Sub Inspector Dilbag Singh, and staff visited the Motor Market Complex on 9.11.1994 between 3.00 P.M. to 4.30 P.M. During the course of checking, it was found that the persons, namely Kalu Ram, Babu Lal, Pawan Kumar, Bholla Singh and Chotu have stored and have been selling public distribution system kerosene oil without having any valid licence in contravention of the Order 1966. After FIR was investigated, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted, and as stated above charge was framed.
(3.) PROSECUTION examined Deep Singh Sandhu, Inspector, Food and Supplies Department, U.T. Chandigarh, as PW.1. In his examination-in-chief he stated that his statement was recorded by the police. It is further stated that it was not the case that the accused and other persons were apprehended in the absence of police by himself and associate Inspectors and after the recoveries from them, he went to the Police Station and brought the police at the spot. He was declared hostile by learned Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined. He denied the suggestion put up by learned Public Prosecutor that the accused present in the Court and the other persons were apprehended by him and other Inspectors in the area of Motor Market, Manimajra.;