GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 28. 10. 86 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Sessions Judge) Balotara in Cr. Case No. 8/1985 by which he acquitted the accused respondent for contravention of Provisions of Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing) Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order of 1980") punishable under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. THIS appeal arises in the following circumstances: (i) P. W. 1 Gaga Ram filed a complaint Ex. P/11 on 30. 7. 85 before SHO Police Station, Sivana stating that on 9. 7. 85 being Enforcement Inspector he inspected and checked the shop of Deora Oil Mill, Mahaveer Colony, Sivana whose proprietor was the accused respondent and found storage of food grains, but he was not having licence for storage and sale of food grain articles and, therefore, he contravened the provisions of Order of 1980 punishable under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
(2.) ON this complaint, police registered a case and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/12 and started investigation. After usual investigation police filed challan against the accused respondent on 17. 12. 85 for contravention of terms of some clause of Order of 1980 punishable under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On 6. 2. 86 the learned Special Judge framed charge against the accused respondents that by keeping food grain articles without licence, he breached Clause 3 & 15 of the Order of 1980 which is punishable u/sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and this charge was denied by the accused respondent and claimed trial. During trial, as many as 5 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. and accused respondent examined himself as D. W. 1. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge vide vide judgment and order dated 28. 10. 86 acquitted the accused respondent of the aforesaid charge inter alia holding that: i) On 9. 7. 85 it is well proved that the accused respondent was selling food grain articles without licence and all the articles which were being sold by him, were duly entered in the register as required by law and they were found correct. ii) Stock was also found correct. iii) As soon as accused respondent came to know before checking that some licence was necessary, he applied for the licence on 28. 6. 85 and same has been produced by the prosecution itself and the same is Ex. P/1. iv) The witnesses of the prosecution have further admitted that when the case was registered on 9. 7. 85 against the accused respondent, the licence was not issued to him. v) The accused respondent had rebutted presumption of culpable mental state as is found in Sec. 10c of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the accused respondent was selling the articles in bonafide belief and thus, he did not commit any offence and he was acquitted.
(3.) AGGRIEVED from the said judgment and order, the present state appeal has been filed. In this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the State that: since on the relevant date i. e. on 9. 7. 85, the accused respondent was not having valid licence for sale and distribution of food grains, therefore, he should have been convicted and the findings of learned trial Judge by which he acquitted the accused respondent for the said charge are erroneous one and should be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made buy the learned P. P. and submits that the judgment passed by the Learned trial Judge is based on correct appreciation of evidence and does not call for interference by this Court. ;