Dayanand Sao vs The State of Bihar

I.P. Singh, J.—The sole appellant has been convicted u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-and in default of payment of fine, he shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The prosecution case, in short, is that as per the written report of the informant Sidheshwar Prasad Sinha, Marketing Officer, Biharsharif on 1.5.1989, he inspected the grocery shop of accused Dayanand Sao and found that the shop was open and accused was present. There were rice, wheat, flour etc. in the shop but the informant found that there was no any notice board to display of the stock and prices of those articles. Accused Dayanand Sao was also found dealing with the trade articles without cash memo. He voluntarily admitted his guilt and gave the list of articles available in his shop on 1.5.1989 (Ext. 1) and also put his signature on the seizure list. The informant (P.W. 1) after completing inspection obtained the sanction order from the S.D.O. Biharsharif and lodged the written report (Ext. 5) before the Officer Incharge, Soh Sarai police station on the same day. On the basis of the aforesaid written report a formal F.I.R. was drawn up. After completing the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused. Accordingly the cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether four witnesses. P.W. 1, Sidheshwar Prasad Singh is the informant. P.W. 2, Anul Haque is the Supply Inspector, P.W. 3 is Amar Singh. P.W. 4, Suresh Prasad is the S.I. and I.O. of this case.

P.W. 1 Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him he was posted in the Sub-Divisional Supply Office on 1.5.1989 and on that day at about 11 A.M. he had gone to Moghal Kuan, Ward No. 25 and had inspected the grocery shop of the accused Dayanad alongwith Supply Inspectors. According to him, the grocery shop of the accused was open and accused was also present selling articles in his shop. He claims to have found three quintals rice, two quintals 30 kg. wheat, superfine rice two quintals 20 kg. etc. He has further stated that there was no any notice board showing the stock and display of prices. The accused was not keeping any cash memo book and he was not granting any cash memo to the consumers. He claims to have prepared the copy of the notice board in presence of the accused and there is signature of accused on it. He has further stated that the accused has given in writing voluntarily and there is signature of accused and there is signature of himself and alongwith signature of other persons and the same has been proved by him as Ext. 2. He has further proved the sanction order of the S.D.O. as Ext. 4.

P.W. 2 Md. Anul Haque, Supply Inspector claims to have present on 1.5.1989 at about 11 A.M at the time of inspection of grocery shop of accused. He has given the details of the prosecution case which finds place in Ext. 5. He has also given out that there was no notice board showing the stock and display of prices and that the accused was not maintaining cash memo as well. The copy of the notice board was prepared in his presence and accused has also put his signature on it. The seizure list was prepared in his. presence.

P.W. 3 Amar Singh is also a Supply Inspector. He claims to have been present at the time of the alleged inspection. He has fully supported the prosecution case.

P.W. 4 Suresh Prasad Singh claims to be the Officer Incharge of Soh Sarai police station on 1.5.1989. He has proved the endorsement and signature which finds place on the written report as Ext. 9. According to him he inspected the place of occurrence on the same day and has arrested the accused at his shop and he has identified the accused in dock. He has given the vivid description of the place of occurrence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the occurrence took place 18 years back and the appellant is petty shop owner and has remained in custody for one month. He has further submitted that the appellant has already deposited fine of Rs. 800/-. As such some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to the appellant.

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel I am of view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Out of the aforesaid fine amount the appellant has already deposited Rs. 800/- so the appellant is directed to deposite Rs. 200/- only within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the appellant shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence and fine this appeal is dismissed.