AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises against the judgment dated 06/07/ 1991 passed by the Special Judge, Dumka in Special Case No. 22 of 1986, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Rule 10 of the Trade Articles (Licence Unification) order and has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years.
(2.) THE appellant was a retail dealer under the Public Distribution System and was running a fair price shop at village Kuridih. On 16/04/1986 the Supply Inspector alongwith the Circle Officer, Narainpur inspected the fair price shop of the appellant and found that stock of wheat in the stock register was shown to be nil. The stock register, the sale register, which were furnished on demand, were seized. On the same date the Supply Inspector and the Circle Officer made spot verification regarding distribution of essential articles to the consumers of the said fair price shop of the appellant. On interrogation, it was found that several consumers were either not supplied the wheat at all or were supplied at a lesser quantity for the month of March 1985. Several other irregularities were found in the sale register regarding corresponding entries such as one Lakhi Ram Murmu was shown to have been supplied 5 k.g. of wheat in March 1986 as per entry in his Ration Card No. 56 but in the corresponding entry in the sale register it was shown that he was supplied 10 k.g. of wheat. Similar were the cases of consumers Suraj Murmu, Debi Hembram, Dakhin Murmu, Lakhi Ram Soren, Rageshwar Soren, Jit Ram Soren, Gopin Murmu, Shibu Soren, Nandi Hembram, Boka Hembram and Bishtu Hembram. Accordingly, a F.I.R. was instituted against the appellant and then he was charge -sheeted for the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The substance of acquisition was explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. In order to establish the charges altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and considering the said evidence, adduced by the prosecution, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in the earlier paragraphs.
(3.) MR . Sharma, who has appeared as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that though the prosecution failed to establish charges beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant but he was wrongly and illegally convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court. It has further submitted on behalf of the appellant that at best the allegations levelled against the appellant can be said to be violation of an order made under Section 3(2)(H) and (i) of the E.C. Act for which the maximum sentence prescribed is one year and, therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial court was excessive.;