DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD,J. - (1.) THE criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.11.1995 passed by the Special Judge (B.C. Act) Ranchi, in Khelari P.S. Case No. 67 of 1983 (T.R. No. 139 of 1985) whereby and whereunder, the learned Judge convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.C. Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorus imprisonment for three months.
(2.) THE prosecution case, as stated, is that the informant Nand Lal Ojha, the Security Guard, on 2.10.1983 while on duty checked Truck No. BRN 7641 and found several other articles with five bags of Cement. It was doubted that the Cement was carrying illegally, for which paper was required but the appellant failed to produce any kind of paper in respect of Cement and, as such, the first information report was lodged against the appellant for the offences under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant being PW 1 was examined and after hearing both sides, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the very outset sub -mitted that the whole judgment of the learned Judge is based upon the assumption which cannot take place of conviction as there is no where mention in the First Information Report that the said Cement was levy Cement and there was no any restriction in keeping non -levy Cement at the relevant time. It is also submitted that the seizure list was prepared which was concocted and afterthought as neither signature nor the left thumb -impression (LTI) of the appellant was obtained at the time of preparation of the same which itself falsified the story of seizure in the manner as alleged. It is further arguedthat there is nothing specific in the First Information Report to show that the appellant had violated any kind of order under Section 7 of the E.C. Act on the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment.
(3.) BEFORE appreciating the contention of both the parties, I would like to mention about the First Information Report itself and the written report on the basis of which, the First Information Report was lodged does not indicate that the said Cement was levy Cement. It is also apparent from the seizure list (Ext. 2) that it does not contain the signature of the appellant though it is alleged from the very beginning that the said articles were seized in presence of the appellant. There was no reason as to why the signature of the appellant as required under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not obtained to substantiate the fact as regards the seizure.;