Pooran Chand vs State of Punjab

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The appellant was tried by the Special Court, Ludhiana, for the following two offences :

(i) U/s 7 read with Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act for violating clause 3 of the Kerosene Oil (Fixation of Ceiling Prices) JUDGMENT 1970, by attempting to sell a bottle of Kerosene oil at the rate of Rs. 7/ per bottle instead of Rs. 2.10 as prescribed.

(ii) U/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for having violated clause 3 of the Punjab Light Diesel Oil & Kerosene Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1978, by not maintaining true account of the stock of Kerosene oil as per prescribed forms `C'' and `D''.

He has been held guilty of both the charges. For the offence at (i), he has been awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and for the (ii) offence to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/. The sentences, however, have been made to run concurrently.

What has been found established against him is that on 10th June, 1984, when Joginder Singh PW 1 went to his depot to purchase a bottle of kerosene oil, he demanded Rs. 7 as its price. It was not disputed that the price fixed for such a bottle by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, under clause 3 of the JUDGMENT referred to above was Rs. 2.10 only. Joginder Singh PW refused to purchase the kerosene oil at the demand price and started walking towards Police Post, Millar Ganj, Ludhiana, in order to lodge a complaint when ASI Piara Singh who was accompanied by two Head Constables and two Constables met him. He lodged his report with the ASI in the form of his statement Ex. PA. The same was forwarded to Police Station, Division No. 2, Ludhiana, for the registration of a case against the appellant. Right from there, ASI Piara Singh along with other police officials started for the depot of the appellant. On the way, PWs Inderjit Singh and Kishan Singh also met them. They too were jointed by the police party. On reaching the depot, ASI Piara Singh searched for kerosene oil and found that the appellant had atleast 70 litres of kerosene oil in his stock through as per the stock register and other records, it has been shown as nil. Besides taking these 70 litres in possession, the ASI also took into possession stock register, sale register and the purchase receipts of the kerosene oil vide Exs. PC, PD and PE & PF, respectively. Drum containing the kerosene oil, a tub a drill pump, a funnel and a tinmeasure were also taken into possession vide Exs. P1 to P5 which were duly witnessed by PW 1 Joginder Singh, PW 2 Inderjit Singh, Kishan Singh and HC Satbir Singh. He also recorded statements of these witnesses. As a result of the completion of the investigation, the appellant was sent up for trial with the result as already indicated in the opening part of this judgment.

So far as the conviction of the appellant under charge at (ii) is concerned, the sole submission of Mr. Cheema his learned counsel, is that in view of the provisions of clause 15 of the Licensing JUDGMENT referred to above. ASI Piara Singh had no jurisdiction whatsoever to search or seize the articles in question and on that account the entire proceedings taken against the appellant stand vitiated. This clause of the Control JUDGMENT clearly lays down that no officer below the rank or Sub Inspector of Police shall enter upon or inspect any business premises of a dealer with a view to securing the compliance of the provisions of this JUDGMENT or to satisfy himself that the provisions of this order were being complied with. Similarly this clause further lays down that no officer below the rank of Sub Inspector of Police shall seize kerosene oil found in possession of a dealer in respect of which he has reason to believe that the contravention of this JUDGMENT has taken place. In the light of this provision of the Control JUDGMENT the submission of Mr. Cheema obviously has merit. As a matter of fact, Mr. P.S. Kang, the learned counsel appearing for the State, has hardly anything to submit to counter this stand of the defence counsel. In the face of this factual and legal position, it appears difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant on account of the charge at (ii) above.

So far as the appellant''s conviction under charge No. (i) is concerned, it is urged by Mr. Cheema with some amount of vehemence that the conviction solely rests on the statement of Joginder Singh PW 1, and, therefore, it is not safe to uphold the same. The reasoning adopted by Mr. Cheema is that this witness in all probability was deposing against the appellant at the instance was his employer. PW 2 Inderjit Singh against whom the appellant had suggested some misbehaviour towards his tenant''s wife. In a nutshell, the submission is that since Inderjit Singh was annoyed with the appellant on account of the fact that he objected to the misconduct of this witness he chose to instigate Joginder Singh PW 1 to depose in the manner he had done. I, however, see no substance in this submission. Inderjit Singh PW 2 has not accepted, and has rather categorically denied, that the appellant ever objected to any misbehavior on his part. Besides a suggestion to Inderjit Singh PW to the abovenoted effect, there is no other material on record to lend support to the stand of the appellant. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that Inderjit Singh was in any way annoyed with the appellant, and, therefore, was instrumental in setting up Joginder Singh as a PW against him. Having perused the statement of Joginder Singh, I find that there is hardly anything to doubt his veracity. He has deposed in a forthright manner that on the 10th June, 1984, he had approached the appellant to purchase a bottle of kerosene oil and the letter of offered to sell the same at the rate of Rs. 7/ instead of the controlled price of Rs. 2.10. His immediate reporting the matter to this Police and the recording of the FIR on he basis of his statement and, as supported by the other PWs namely Inderjit Singh and ASI Piara Singh, lend enough of corroboration to his stand. I am, therefore, satisfied that the conviction of the appellant on account of charge No. (i) is not in any way shaky. At this stage, it is argued by Mr. Cheema that the sentence awarded to the appellant appears to be much too much. As a matter of fact, the sentence awarded to him is the maximum for an offence to be tried by way of summary trial. This submission is full of merit. The appellant is a petty deotholder and to sent him to jail for two years for attempting to sell a bottle of kerosene oil at a price higher than the one prescribed appears to be too harsh. I, therefore, while setting aside the sentence of imprisonment under charges No. (i) impose a fine of Rs. 1,500/ on this count. Fine, if already paid by him, would be adjusted towards the payment of this amount of fine.