Sohan Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The conviction of the appellants Sohan Singh and Hari Ram under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of the provisions of the Haryana Kerosene Dealers'' Licensing JUDGMENT 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Licensing JUDGMENT) cannot indeed be sustained.

The charge against the appellant Sohan Singh was that in September, 1983, he had purchased and sold kerosene oil without licence in contravention of Clause (3) of the Licensing

The case against Sohan Singh rests upon the testimony of P.W.6 Sri Kishan, who deposed to the effect that on September 16, 1983, he saw two drums of kerosene oil being brought to the house of Sohan Singh. According to him, the police raided the house of Sohan Singh about ten days later and recovered these two drums of kerosene oil and on that occasion he had also signed the recovery memo. The testimony of this witness, however, stands contradicted by that of the investigating officer, P.W.10 A.S.I. Ram Dhan, who while deposing to the recoveries of two drums of kerosene oil from the house of Sohan Singh, stated that P.W.6 Sri Kishan was not present there at that time nor had he attested the recovery memo. According to him, the recovery memo bore the signatures of Krishan Kumar, peon who has not been examined as a witness in this case. In this situation, no credence can be given to the statement of P.W.6 Sri Kishan.

As regards the recovery of two drums of kerosene oil from the house of Sohan Singh, however, there is also of the statement of P.W.8 Mohinder Singh SubInspector, Food and Supplies Panipat, but this is not a matter of much consequence as there can be no manner of doubt that mere possession of kerosene oil cannot, by itself, suffice to bring Sohan Singh within the definition of `Dealer'' under the Licensing JUDGMENTA dealer there being defined to mean "a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of kerosene oil, whether wholesale or retail." In other words, to hold Sohan Singh liable, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish something more than mere possession of kerosene oil. In this behalf, there is the testimony of P.W5 Naurang, who deposed that about a year ago, he had purchased 2 or 3 bottles of kerosene oil from him. It is pertinent to note, however, that in crossexamination, he was constrained to admit that he did not know the number of Sohan Singh''s house, who resided in his neighbourhood and what Sohan Singh did. He also could not give the date of the month when he had purchased this kerosene oil from him. Further, according to him, it was only after a fortnight or month of his having purchased this kerosene oil that he went to the police post and made a statement. The testimony of this witness would clearly be very unsafe to be relied upon. It will thus be seen that the evidence against Sohan Singh falls far short of that required to render him liable for the offence charged.

Turning now to the case against the other accused Hari Ram, the charge against him is that being a dealer in kerosene oil, he did not maintain proper accounts of the sale of kerosene oil and had also sold kerosene oil in the blackmarket. As regards the maintenance of proper accounts, the evidence on record, as also found by the trial Court, shows that 3,000 litres of kerosene oil were received by Hari Ram on August 26, 1983. A similar amount on September 19, 1983 and 1,000 litres on September 22, 1983. The relevant entries in the stockregister clearly record the receipt of this quantity of kerosene oil on these dates. In the relevant entries the amount sold is also mentioned. What seems to have weighed with the trial court in the entry 3,000 litres of kerosene oil shown as the opening balance on September 18, 1983. A reference to this register Ex. P.C. would show that an erroneous entry appears to have been made with regard to September 18, 1983, which shows the opening balance to be 3,000 litres; quantity received again 3,000 litres, and the closing balance also to be 3,000 litres. It will be recalled that the first lot of 3,000 litres had been received on August 26, 1983. The sale of this entire quantity is duly recorded in the register, exhibit P/G. No kerosene oil even as per the prosecution, was received by Hari Ram on September 18, 1983. The entry with regard to this quantity having been received on that date was thus obviously erroneous and more so, in view of the entry of September 19, 1983, where 3,000 litres are recorded as having been received and thereafter the quantity sold was 1,320 leaving a balance of 1,680 litres. Merely, on the basis of this wrong entry of September 18, 1983, no criminal liability can be fastened upon Hari Ram.

The next part of the charge relates to the sale of kerosene oil by Hari Ram in the blackmarket. In order to prove this charge, the prosecution sought to rely upon the testimony of P.W.3 Zarim; P.W.4 Shamshudeen, besides, of course, that of the Investigating OfficerP.W. 10ASI Ram Dhan. A reading of the testimony of P.W.3 Zarim would show that even on his own showing, no entry with regard to the issuance of kerosene oil had been made by Hari Ram on his rationcard, but he went on to state that he made an entry to this effect in his register and also obtained his signatures thereon. A search was then made by the public prosecutor for the relevant entry in the said register, but no such entry could be located. Coming next to the testimony of P.W.4 Shamshudden, he deposed that he had asked for both sugar and kerosene oil on his rationcard, but only sugar had been given to him though an entry had been made on his ration card even with regard to kerosene oil. It is pertinent to mention here that no effort was made by the prosecution to prove that the entry on the ration card was in the hand of Hari Ram. Further, it deserves note that Shamshudeen admitted that he was illiterate and in crossexamination, he stated that he came to the conclusion that an entry had been made with regard to the issuance of the kerosene oil to him as Hari Ram had obtained his thumbimpressions on two places. The prosecution has not been able to clarify where these two places were. It is also significant to note that on his showing, Shamshudeen had never obtained kerosene oil from this depot.

The evidence on record cannot thus justify the conviction of either Sohan Singh or Hari Ram in respect of the offences charged. The conviction and sentence imposed upon both the appellants are consequently hereby set aside. The two drums of kerosene oil said to have been recovered from the possession of Sohan Singh have not been claimed by him and they shall consequently stand confiscated by the State.

This appeal is accordingly hereby accepted.