K. BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT Champalal was tried for the offence u/secs. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali and was held guilty for that charge. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment.
(2.) RESPONDENT Champalal preferred appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Pali. The learned Sessions Judge by the judgment dated 24. 3. 1976 held that the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing the guilt against the accused and acquitted him of the charge. The State of Rajasthan has now come in appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali. I have heard Mr. L. M. Lodha, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. S. R. Singhi, learned counsel for respondent and perused the record of the case. The case against the petitioner was that he was licence dealer for food-grains at Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Gundoj and was guilty of distributing more grain than what was there in the stock between the period 1. 4. 70 to 6. 4. 70 and 13. 4. 70 to 7. 5. 70. Disparity in the stock register and the distribution register led the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of violating one of the conditions of the licence that he shall maintain a register of daily account for food-grain correctly showing the opening stock quantity received each and every day and quantity delivered or otherwise removed during the day and the closing stock of each day. The Enforcement Inspector inspected the premises of the society on 25. 5. 70 and upon checking of the register noted the disparity between the two registers as stated above The explanation of the accused respondent was that some few ration card holders had actually taken the wheat on the following days although their entries had been made earlier. The learned Sessions Judge took this explanation plausible and in my opinion was correct in holding that the correct position was not taken into consideration by the Enforcement Inspector and without there being any fault of the respondent he was made to face the trial. Evidently it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had not distributed the wheat to the ration card holders and sold it in black market. The grievance of the prosecution was that he had distributed more wheat to the public than what was there in the stock. The explanation of the accused respondent has been rightly taken to be reasonable by the learned Sessions Judge and the finding of innocence of the respondent based on sound grounds calls for no interference.
(3.) THE appeal filed by the State has no substance and is dismissed. .;