Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 67 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.4.1995 passed in G.R. Case No. 1331 of 1991, Tr. No. 2 of 1995 by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madhubani. ****** ASHOK KUMAR S/O SRI RAM AWATAR MAHASETH, R/O MOHALLA BHAUARA WARD NO. 18, P.S. MADHUBANI TOWN, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Adv. : Dr. M.K. Gautam Adv. For the State : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Section 7 Essential Commodities, Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madhubani in G.R. Case No. 1331 of 1991, Tr. No. 2 of 1995 by the judgment dated 26.4.1995. 2. The case of the appellant is that when the godown of the appellant was inspected on 29.6.1991 by the informant he found 90 Kg. of Dhania, 55 bags of rice, 90 Kg. of Chilli, 2 bags of Haldi and 21 bags of Onion. 3. The allegation was that the appellant was holding all these articles without a valid information to a Supply Authorities for keeping such articles in a premises which was not meant of keeping the same. 4. The prosecution in all examined 6 witnesses out of whom P.W.1 and 2 are the seizure witnesses whereas P.W.3 is the Supply 2 Inspector whereas P.W. 4 is also a Supply Inspector of Madhubani is the informant of the case, P.W. 6 is the staff of the supply office and P.W. 5 is a formal. 5. The admitted position is that the appellant was the retail shop licensee and had a license for running his shop at a ward no.17. It is also admitted that the appellant had given an application that he would be storing all these articles in ward no. 19 but the authorities had not received such an information and, therefore a raid was conducted in the premises. Since the storage of these articles by a valid licensee in a building which was not notified by the supply department would make the appellant liable only for committing an irregularity, I am inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Madhubani in G.R. Case No. 1331 of 1991, Tr. No. 2 of 1995 by the judgment dated 26.4.1995 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted for the charges. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 22nd April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.