State of Rajasthan vs Shankarlal Tikkiwal and Another

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.4.1990 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted accused respondent No. 1, and 2 for offence u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 10.12.1979 a raiding party had inspected the shop of accused respondent. The raiding party found that the accused respondents are trading in sugar. At the time of raiding, the raiding party found more than ten quintals of sugar. Thus, there was more sugar than the permissible quantity. They also found some irregularities about the stocks and price list of the commodities. Against the accused respondents, the charges were framed u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (''the Act'' for short).

In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and submitted few documents. The accused respondent No. 1 Shankarlal Tikkiwal, in his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC had claimed that he had merely opened his shop when the raiding party came to his shop. Moreover, the accused respondent No. 1 examined himself as a defence witness and also examined two other witnesses, in order to buttress his case. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 21.4.1990. the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hence, this criminal appeal before this Court.

The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. According to Nameshwar (PW1), the sugar that was discovered in the godown of respondent No. 1 was actually sugar and was not sulphur sugar, (sic) the learned Judge has concluded that the prosecution has not been able to prove whether sugar or sulphur sugar was discovered in the godown. Moreover, the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that the price list was not displayed as required by law. Therefore, the essential requirements of conditions No.3 of Order of 1967 and condition Nos. 3 and 5 of Order of 1977 have been violated. Hence, the prosecution had proved the fact that offences u/s 3/7 of the Act were committed.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has meticulously examined and critically analysed the evidence. According to the learned Magistrate, the raiding party did not take any sample from the alleged sugar recovered from the godown. Moreover, the raiding party did not weigh the bags which were discovered in the godown. According to the defence, what was discovered was sulphur sugar. Fifty quintals of sulfur sugar could be kept without a licence. Therefore, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove the fact that the commodity which was discovered in the godown was, in fact, sugar and not sulphur sugar. However, according to the learned Magistrate, the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the commodity which was discovered was actually sugar.

Moreover, the learned Magistrate has noticed the fact that according to Kailash Chandra (PW4), in his cross-examination, had admitted that at the time of the raid, the accused respondent No. 1 had clearly informed the raiding party that the bags contained "sulphur sugar". The prosecution has not declared him as a hostile witness. At the time of raiding, explanation and the nature of the commodity was revealed to the raiding party. Yet, the raiding party did not take out a sample to establish its case that the commodity so discovered was, in fact, sugar and not sulphur sugar. Thus, the learned Magistrate was justified, in concluding that the prosecution has not established its case beyond a reasonable doubt

Moreover, the learned Magistrate has noticed the fact that the raid had been earned out when the shop was being opened. Relying upon certain observations of this Court, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that since the raid had taken place just when the shop was opened and according to the witnesses, the accused respondent No. 1 was busy cleaning the shop, at such a juncture, it cannot be expected that the price list would be displayed at the proper place. Since the learned Magistrate has given legal and cogent reasons for acquitting the accused respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merit, it is hereby dismissed.