AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 231 wordsAnjana Prakash, J.—The Appellants have been convicted u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to RI for six months and a further fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Madhepura in Special Case No. 9 of 1992 by a judgment dated 27.06.1995.
The case of the prosecution is that when the Block Supply Officer, Alam Nagar inspected the business premises of the Appellants on 16.07.1992 some discrepancies were found in the display board and stock register and the Appellants failed to produce cash-memos and other documents.
During trial the prosecution in all examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 7 is tendered whereas P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 are formal in nature. P.W. 1 Nagendra Pathak stated in his evidence that during inspection the commodities were not weighed and, therefore, the fact that stocks were not found in order is not substantiated. P.W. 2 has also stated likewise. P.W. 8 the sole witness has supported the case of the prosecution but in absence of the examination of the Investigating Officer his evidence is not fit to be relied upon.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 27.06.1995 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge cum-Special Judge, Madhepura in Special Case No. 9 of 1992 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.