HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 261 of 1999 Decided on: 13.7.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Gaya Ram ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., dated 25.4.1998, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 7(1)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)for having contravened Rules 6 and 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1979, issued under Section 3(1)(2)(d) of the Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint was received by PW-1 Veer Singh, Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, posted at Nirmand, that on 1.10.1994, one Gautam Ram and Lal Dass came to his office and complained that they were not being supplied essential commodities by ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - the respondent, who was a depot holder. They also proclaimed that sugar is not being supplied to them but the same is being disposed of to one Kapoor Chand and Beli Ram, Halwai, running shop near Bus Stand, Nirmand. Thereafter, PW-1 Veer Singh proceeded to the Dhaba of Kapoor Chand and Beli Ram and a gunny bag was found lying near the Bhatti of their shop, which was containing sugar. On enquiry, it was learnt that the sugar has been purchased from the respondent and the bargain was struck by Beli Ram, who was not present in the Dhaba. The said gunny bag was removed from the Dhaba and on weighing the same, it was found to be containing 68 kg. sugar. The sugar was given on sapurdari to one Chitar Kumar, Secretary of Nirmand Cooperative Society, vide memo Ext.PA. Thereafter, PW-1 Veer Singh visited the shop of the respondent on that day as well as on 1st, 5th and 6th October, 1994, which was found locked. On 7.10.1994, the respondent met the Inspector and they went to the depot and found that there was no stock except 6 containers of Vanaspati Ghee. He recorded the statement of the respondent Ext.PB, took into possession the stock register and there was no entry in regard to the sale of sugar after 18.9.1994, though the stock showed that there was 4 quintals of sugar as on that date. No entry had been made regarding the distribution of sugar after 18.9.1994. He addressed a letter to the District Food Supply Controller, Kullu, brought the facts into his notice and on getting sanction from the said Officer, the complaint was sent to the Police Station, Nirmand, on which basis the FIR was registered. After investigation, the challan was - 3 - filed under the abovementioned Sections and the respondent was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and the record of the case, it is clear that neither the Inspector, Food and Supply was serious to investigate the case or present the complaint to the police according to law nor the Police Officers, who dealt with the case, were serious to prosecute the respondent since they did not adopt a proper procedure or bring on record the relevant documents which were required to prove the case. Even the Inspector, Food and Supply, namely, PW-1 Veer Singh was not aware if the respondent was a depot holder, when he was declared as a depot holder and was required to receive the sugar and distribute the same through the fair price shop nor the said Inspector PW-1 Veer Singh was aware of the provisions which were violated by him to make the offence of the respondent punishable under Section 3 Read with Section 7 of the Act. 5. The first point to be proved was that the respondent was a depot holder as per the sanction granted by the Department of Food and Civil supplies. However, there is no evidence led in this regard. PW-1 Veer Singh is the complainant in this case, who stated that he cannot tell the license number obtained by the respondent as a depot holder - 4 - nor he has placed on record any document to that effect. Even in his statement also, he has not stated that the accused was issued a license to run the shop as depot holder and dealt with essential commodities including the sugar. He is silent on this point though he was the material witness being the complainant in this case. 6. The only evidence sought to be led in this regard is agreement Ext.PG in favour of the President of India, which only shows that the respondent was a salesman and had executed the agreement as salesman. The same has not been even signed by any person on behalf of the President of India. It has been rightly observed by the learned trial Court that the agreement had to be not with the president of India but in between the Governor of the State since it was a State and had to be signed by some Officer on behalf of the State Government, which is not there. In the agreement also, there is a reference of Rs.200/- to be forfeited in case of any default and there is also a reference to the surety bond. 7. PW-6 Daulat Ram, a marginal witness of surety memo Ext.PG/A and agreement Ext.PG, has admitted that the surety was given in the context of salesman. The said surety bond does not prove that the respondent was ever given a license to run the depot or was a depot holder as per the record of the Department. Thus, the basic requirement was not proved that the respondent was a depot holder and was entrusted with sugar as an essential commodity during his such working as a depot holder. - 5 - 8. Apart from the above, no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove as to how much of sugar was sent to the respondent, which he failed to distribute to the ration card holders or persons eligible to get the sugar from the fair price shop. There is nothing on the record as to which of the Rules were violated by the respondent and no copy of the relevant rules has been placed on record or proved in evidence. The recovery of sugar in question has not been proved by proving any recovery memo vide which the stock of sugar was taken in possession by the Inspector or by the police. The only fact proved is that the sugar was lying outside the Dhaba and it is not proved that the said sugar was a levy sugar received by the respondent as a depot holder. It is in evidence of PW-1 Veer Singh that the gunny bags of sugar of the Department have stencil mark, but he did not notice any such mark on the gunny bags containing sugar about which a memo was prepared. No such sugar taken in possession was produced during the trial of the case or the recovery of gunny bag proved in evidence during the trial of the case. 9. It is, therefore, clear that neither the Food and Civil Supplies Department was serious to conduct the case according to law nor the relevant evidence was collected, nor the police officers, who dealt with the case, were interested to see that the challan was filed in accordance with law and proper evidence was produced before the Court. 10. Therefore, the net conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the - 6 - prosecution leading to the acquittal of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 11. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which stands dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. July 13, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge