- (1.) IN merchantile system of accountancy, it is absolutely necessary to make physical verification of the stock in possession at the beginning of the accounting year as well as its close. This necessity arises on account of the fact that without taking into account the stock in possession at the beginning and the end of the accounting year, it is not at all possible to work out annual profits or losses earned or suffered by a trader. This system also prevents evasion of various taxations like, INcome Tax and Sales Tax. Apart from that, important economic legislation like, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the object of which is to regulate the supply and distribution of essential commodities, the stock possession assumes its importance in order to prevent black marketing and ensuring efficient working of public distribution system. For that, from time to time various orders have been issued by the State Government including the Rajasthan Gur Khandsari & Gur Dealer Licencing Order 1972. One of the essential requirements of such orders is that a trader dealing in Gur and Khandsari should exhibit the stock position as well as the price rate on a Notice Board at a conspicuous part of its business premise. The object behind such provision is that a customer should know about the availability of such essential commodity with the dealer and the price prevalent in the market. Any contravention of such provision leads to black marketing and development of parallel economy which is not conducive to the public good and welfare. IN this background, the case of the present nature has to be looked into.
(2.) NATHUMAL S/o Jhamatmal Singhi carried on business under the style of M/s NATHUMAL Jhamatmal at Gangori Bazar, Jaipur. On July 6, 1976, Satveer Singh Enforcement Inspector, Jaipur alongwith Keshav Chand Sharma and Chandra Shekhar Mishra inspected the business precincts of the above named firm. It found that the respondent did not possess any licence required to be held by a dealer of Gur and Khandsari having transactions in or holding Gur in more than the prescribed quantity. It was found that although the price of Gur had been exhibited but the stock position was not exhibited. On a physical verification it was found that the said firm had 108 Kgs Gur. available for the sale but the respondent did not hold a licence in dealing with this commodity. Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed against the respondent for contravention of the provision contained in Rajasthan Gur and Khandsari Dealers Licencing Order, 1972 which was punishable under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This criminal complaint was filed on August 28, 1976. The case was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur who, by judgment dated July 1, 1980, held the respondent guilty for the offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and convicted him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs. 700/ -. In default of payment of fine respondent was further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The respondent filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 24/1981 before the Court of Sessions Judge. That appeal was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 by his judgment dated June 2, 1981. The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the appeal filed by the respondent, set-aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and acquitted the respondent for the charge framed against him. The Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the prosecution had failed to establish that the Gur in the business premises of NATHUMAL was more than the limit of 50 quintals prescribed which necessitated the holding of a licence. It may be mentioned that in his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. respondent did not dispute that he carried on business in the Gur and further that he did not hold any licence. The reason assigned by him for not holding the licence was that he does not keep in stock more than 50 quintals of Gur and keeps only 30 quintals. According to him, on July 30, 1976 when the checking was made, he held stock of 40 quintals of Gur. The State has come in appeal by leave and the learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of the documents Ex. P 2, P 3 and P 6 strongly urged that the respondent held in his possession stock more than 50 quintals. According to him, the total quantity of Gur held in stock; by the respondent was 108 Kgs. and 600 Grams. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City in his judgment has referred to the statement of the prosecution witnesses to urge that the Gur in stock was not actually weighed by the Enforcement Inspector and thus prosecution had utterly failed to establish that the petitioner held in his stock Gur more than the prescribed limit. The Additional Sessions Judge, observed that PW 2 Keshav Chand was not present at the time of alleged weighment. He has disbelieved the correctness of the statement of Chandra Shekoar PW3. I have been taken through the evidence produced in the case by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. There is nothing to indicate or even to suggest that the respondent maintained any stock register which ordinarily he should have maintained because only by that means he could exhibit the correct stock position of very date. All the accounts books remained in possession of the trader and the authenticity of his version could only be verified if he could show from the stock register the real position of Gur in his stock in the year 1976. There was clear misrepresentation in exhibit P. 6 that there was no Gur in his stock on that date. Respondent himself admits in his examination under sec. 313, Cr. P. C. that he held 40 quintals of Gur to his stock on that date. There is no explanation that even much stock was not exhibited on the Board which contained the stock position and the sale price. Exhibit P 2 and Exhibit P. 3 are important documents in the case which recorded the weight of each bag containing the Gur which was found in this shop and godown of the respondent. Even that much stock was handed over to Ishwarlal on 'supardginama' by Exhibit P 5. I do not find any reason to doubt the statement of Chandra Shekhar PW 3 that the Gur in the shop and godown of the respondent was actually weighed and the total weight of the Gur in the shop and Godown was respectively found to be in all 108. 9 Kgs. and 600 gramms. Ex. P 2 and Ex. P 3 were prepared at the spot and were signed by Keshav Chandra PW 2, Chandra Shekhar PW 3, Ishwarlal PW4 and Darshan Singh PW 5. All these witnesses have admitted their signatures on these documents. The witnesses are literate and they had signed on them in full consciousness of their contents. It is true that Ishwarlal PW 4 and Darshan Singh PW 5 were cross-examined by Assistant Public Prosecutor for the reason that Ishwarlal stated that he did not remember the quantity of Gur as the matter had become old. However, there are clearly admitted documents Exhibits P 2 to P 5 which all bore their signatures. They also admit that they had signed these documents after reading them, the case of the prosecution cannot be frustrated by evidence of persons like Darshan Singh who is so responsible person that he stated that he signed these papers even without reading them. Non-production of Gur is not fatal to the prosecution case. Satveer Singh, Kailash Chandra and Chandra Shekhar state about the Gur being weighed and I do not find any reason to doubt the correctness of the weight recorded in these documents. Even Nathumal had signed both these documents. He never raised a protest about the correctness of their contents at any time. It is also difficult to understand how a supardgar would execute document of a quantity of Gur unless it was handed over to him to the extent of mentioned quantity. On appraisal of the evidence and reasons mentioned above, it is established by the prosecution that the respondent had in his stock at his shop and godown Gur to the extent of 108. 9 Kgs. and 600 gramms on July 6, 1976 and it is not disputed that the respondent did not hold any license under the above mentioned Order of the year 1972. He has committed contravention of the provisions of the said Order and he was rightly held guilty by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City and rightly sentenced till the rising of the court, which was a very lenient sentence, and also to the payment of fine of Rs. 700/- and in default of payment of fine was further rightly sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. I allow this State appeal, set-aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City dated June 2, 1981 and restore the conviction and sentence recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur City against the respondent by his judgment dated July 1, 1980. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City will now take steps to enforce the sentence and fine awarded and imposed by him and which has been restored by this judgment, if not already enforced. .;