Jeet Singh vs State of Haryana

I.S.Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The appellant who is running a fairprice shop approved by the State Government was charged of violating clause 9 of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality JUDGMENT 1977 (hereinafter called the JUDGMENT) on the following two counts :

(i) On 11.11.1983 he got recovered 4 bags of sugar (each weighing 98 kgs.) in pursuance of his statement Ex PE recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act from his fair price shop as against the book balance of 9 Qls. 60 kgs. 8 gms. of sugar.

(ii) Similarly on the same date 480 lbs. of kerosene oil was recovered from his fair price shop as against the stock balance shown nil in the various registers required to be maintained by him.

Clause 9 of the JUDGMENT the violation of which is alleged, reads as follows

"19. (1) The physical stock balances of various articles in a fair price shop authorised and approved by the Government or by any officer authorised by it in this behalf, shall conform to the book balances as per account books maintained by him

(2) All purchases sales and production made will be correctly accounted for in account books maintained and shall conform to the actual transactions made".

Learned counsel for the appellant now urges with some amount of vehemence that even the solitary witness, i.e., PWB Constable Jagdish Chand on whose statement firm reliance has been placed by the trial court for holding the appellant guilty of the above noted offences has admitted in no uncertain terms that the recovery of 480 lbs of kerosene oil was effected from the godown of the appellant and not from his fair price shop and, therefore, the commission of this offence by him is not established. I see merit in this submission of the learned counsel. A bare perusal of clause 9(1) of the JUDGMENT indicates that it is only the stock balance of various articles found in a fair price shop that should conform to the book balances as pet account books maintained by the dealer. It is beyond dispute that PW8 Constable Jagdish Chand whose testimony alone has been believed by trial court has conceded in his evidence that the kerosene oil was recovered from the godown of the appellant. In the face of this evidence it could not reasonably be held by the trial Court that the physical stock of the kerosene oil in the fair price shop of the appellant did not tally with the book balance as per account books, maintained by him under the Control JUDGMENTAs pointed out earlier, as per these books the balance of kerosene oil with him was nil and no kerosene oil was actually found from within the fair price shop of the appellant. I, therefore, set aside his conviction under this charge.

So far as the violation of clause 9 of the JUDGMENT qua the stock of sugar that had been recovered from the fair price shop of the appellant is concerned I find that his learned counsel has hardly anything to submit. His sole plea is that as per the prosecution evidence 1116 qls of sugar was, as a matter of fact, recovered from the godown of the appellant and out of that 960 kgs. as per his balance account was to be there in the shop itself, It is only that at a given moment of time the appellant could not transport this sugar from his godown to the shop and, therefore, he cannot justifiably be held guilty of any criminal intention or the commission. Of an offence as alleged. However, find no merit in this submission of the learned counsel. Even it for argument''s sake it has to be accepted though there is no material basis for doing so that the sugar in the godown of the appellant had to be transported to the fair price shop, still the fact remains that the stock balance of the sugar in the fair price shop itself did not tally with the various entries in the books of account meant for the purpose. It is the undisputed position that at the relevant time the physical stock of the sugar in the shop of the appellant was 392 kgs. and not 960 kgs. as shown in the account books maintained by him. I, therefore, reject his appeal qua this charge. His sentence of imprisonment, however, is reduced to the minimum prescribed in law, i.e., three months rigorous imprisonment as per section 7 (i) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and he is rather given an added punishment of fine of Rs 1,500/. In case of default of payment of fine he will undergo further sentence of three months.