IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3509 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : May 06, 2009 M/s. Shree Gopal Rice and General Rice Mills, Sirsa Road, Fatehabad Appellant Versus Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Neena Madan, Advocate for the respondents A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that the plaintiff firm is engaged in the business of rice milling for the last so many years. The plaintiff firm has been paying the market fees regularly as per law. On 30.11.2002, Sh. Radhey Sham, DMEO, Kurukshetra alongwith local staff checked the paddy stock of plaintiff's firm and was informed by Sh. Sohan Lal, Accountant of the plaintiff firm that paddy weighing 1560 qtls. 55 Kgs was to be taken from FCI Fatehabad for which advance rice had already been delivered to the FCI, Fatehabad as per their instructions. It was also averred that on evening of 29.11.2002 and morning of 30.11.2002 paddy 1560 qtls. 55 Kgs were found unlifted by FCI, Fatehabad. The original record was shown to DMEO by the accountant of the plaintiff. The DMEO R.S.A. No. 3509 of 2005(O&M) 2 did not consider the record of the plaintiff and took it as unaccounted paddy and passed the impugned order on form 'M' by making endorsement “weight not added in stock register”. The same note was given on form 'A' by the said DMEO. The plaintiff was forced to make payment of Rs. 36,952 on account of “excess paddy penalty” for not showing the paddy in the stock register. To the contrary, in the written statement filed by the defendant, he has stated that the order of penalty was quite valid. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, admitted facts are that the defendant had directed to plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 36,952/- because on checking, the paddy was found in excess and entry regarding the same was missing in the stock register. This penalty was imposed upon the plaintiff as per rules. In fact the matter was compounded by the parties and the plaintiff had deposited Rs. 500/- as composition. Om Parkash Sardana – PW1 had admitted during his cross-examination that the search report bears the signature of accountant Sohan Lal. However, this fact could not be refuted by the plaintiff. There is nothing on the record to prove that he was pressurised by the defendants to make his signature. The records do not suggest that the amount was illegally recovered by the defendants. No substantial question of law arises and is involved in this case. Hence, dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 06.05.2009 JUDGE reena