Giani Ram vs The State of Haryana

V.M. Jain, J.—This is an appeal filed by accused-appellant, Giani Ram against the judgment and order dated 20/22.5.1992 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge Sonepat under the Essential Commodities Act), vide which the accused-appellant was convicted u/s 7 of

the Essential Commodities Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment to undergo

further RI for one month.

The case of the prosecution against accused-appellant was that on 1.2.1991, Dharam Singh, Assistant Food and Supply Officer with Dhan Raj,

Inspector and Satbir Singh, Sub Inspector, Food and Supplies had gone to the ration depot of the accused in village Gamri for the purpose of

checking and that on asking he had produced sale register Exhibit P-A and stock register, Exhibit P-A/l, which were maintained at his depot. On

checking, it was found that the accused-appellant, Giani Ram had 57 quintals of wheat in his stock on 17.1.1991, whereas on 1.2.1991, the stock

of wheat was nill and the last entry in the sale register was dated 24.1.1991. The officials of the Food and Supplies Department, visited the village

and contacted various ration card holders, who deposed that in the month of Jan. 1991, they were supplied 10 kg of wheat each by the accused,

whereas in the sale register the entries in respect of the said ration card holders showed that large quantity of wheat was supplied to those ration

card holders in the month of January 1991. Thereupon, the matter was reported to the police on the basis of which the present case was registered

against the appellant.

After investigation the challan was submitted in the Court. The learned Special Judge charged the accused u/s 7 of the aforesaid Act, to which

accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In respect of its case, the prosecution examined various witnesses. Thereafter the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In the

said statement accused stated that he was innocent and had been falsely impleaded in this case. He admitted that against various entries in respect

of the ration card holders examined by the officials of the Food and Supplies Department, he had made entries in respect of sale of 60.80 kg of

wheat in the sale register, Exhibit P-A. However, he denied that he had supplied only 10 kg wheat to them at the relevant time. In his defence, he

examined DW-1, Kundan Lal and DW-2, Chander Singh. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Special Judge convicted

and sentenced the accused-appellant, as referred to above. Aggrieved against the same, accused-appellant filed the present appeal in this Court.

No-one has come present on behalf of the appellant. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Special Judge and have also gone through

the entire evidence with the assistance of the State of Counsel and have also heard the learned State counsel.

In his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C, accused-appellant had admitted that as on 16.1.1991, he had brought 60 Bags of wheat weighing 57 quintals

in all to his depot from P.R. Centre, Rohtak, for distribution to the ration card holders and that he also admitted that the various ration card

holders, who were examined by the official of the Food and Supplies Department, were attached to his depot for taking wheat etc. He also

admitted that in the sale register, Exhibit P-A, he had shown supply of 60 kg of wheat to Hari Singh, PW, 80 kg of wheat to Bhagwana PW, 60

Kg of wheat to another Hari Singh and 80 Kg of wheat to Sabrati of Sabarti PW, in the month of January, 1991. He, however, denied that he had

supplied only 10 Kg wheat each to them at that time. He admitted that the various officials of the Food and Supplies Department had checked his

depot on 1.2.1991 in his presence. He also admitted that at the time of the checking, the wheat stock was nil on 1.2.1991 and that the last entry

was of 24.1.1991 in the sale register.

PW-1, Hari Singh son of Tek Ram, categorically stated that he was having ration card, Exhibit P-1 and that in the month of January, 1991 he

had taken 10 Kg of wheat from the accused-Giani Ram against the said ration card, vide entry at serial number41 in the sale register, Exhibit P-A.

During cross-examination, he admitted that he was supplied 10 Kg of wheat by the accused on that date against his ration card. PW-2, Bhagwana

son of Mool Chand also deposed that against this ration card, Exhibit P-2, in the month of January, 1991, 10 kg of wheat was supplied to him by

the accused as per entry at serial number 20 in the sale register, Exhibit P-A. However, he denied the suggestion during cross-examination that he

had taken 80 Kg of wheat on that date against his ration card and not 10 Kg. Similarly, PW-4 Hari Singh son of Baru and PW-5 Sabrati, deposed

that against their ration cards, Exhibits P-4 and P-S, they had taken 10 Kg of wheat each in the month of January 1991 from the accused. They

denied the suggestion that in fact, they have got 60 Kg and 80 Kg of wheat respectively from the accused instead of 10 Kg of wheat.

In my opinion, there is absolutely, no reason to discard the testimony of PW-1, Hari Singh, PW-3 Bhagwana, PW-4 Hari Singh and PW-5,

Sabrati, when they deposed that they were supplied only 10 Kg of wheat in the month of January, 1991. PW-2 Bhagwana, PW-4, Hari Singh and

PW-5, Sabrati, categorically denied the suggestion that they were supplied 80 Kg, 60 Kg and 80Kg of wheat respectively and not 10 Kg.

So far as, PW-1, Hari Singh son of Tek Ram is concerned, the only suggestion given to him during the cross-examination was that 10 Kg wheat

was supplied to him at the relevant time against his ration card and this suggestion on behalf of accused was duly admitted by him as correct. Thus,

considering the suggestion given to PW-1 Hari Singh son of Tek Ram, it would appear that he was supplied only 10 Kg of wheat in January,

1991, whereas the entry at Serial No.41 in the sale register, Exhibit P-A showed that 60 Kg of wheat was supplied to him in January, 1991. This

itself would be in contravention of the Control Order, punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Furthermore, nothing has come on the

record to show as to why the various witnesses referred to above would falsely implicate the accused-appellant, with regard to less supply of

wheat to them in January, 1991 as against quantity entered in the sale register. This is especially so when the suggestion give to PW-1 Hari Singh

was that only 10 Kg of wheat was supplied to him, which was admitted by him. Furthermore, no entry was made in the ration cards in respect of

wheat sold to the ration card holder in January, 1991. It would also clearly prove the intention of the accused inasmuch as the ration cards

remained with the ration card holders, whereas the sale register remained with the depot holder.

Merely because accused-appellant was acquitted by the learned Special Judge in respect of non-display of board outside the depot of the

accused-appellant, in my opinion, would not be enough to doubt the case of the prosecution, especially when four of the witnesses, who are

independent witnesses referred to above, had supported the case of the prosecution that only 10 Kg of wheat each was supplied to them and not

60/80 Kg of wheat as entered by the accused in the sale register.

With regard to the defence taken by the accused that he had been falsely implicated in the case and he had contested the election of the

Sarpanch, in my opinion, cannot be accepted in the absence of any further proof. The statement of DW-1 Kundan Singh and DW-2 Chander

Singh that the prosecution witnesses had opposed him in the said election, in my opinion, would not be enough to hold that accused-appellant had

been falsely implicated in this case. This is especially so when the prosecution case was fully proved on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses

and the sale register maintained by the accused-appellant himself.

In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, no fault could be found with the judgment/order passed by the Special Judge convicting and

sentencing accused-appellant. The learned Special Judge had awarded minimum sentence to the accused-appellant and no fault could be found

with the same.

For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.