Darshan Kumar vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

Darshan Kumar and Smt. Rekha Jindal, who were partners of M/s Vijay Bricks Works, Mullapur, District Ludhiana, manufacturing bricks under licence No. 55L, were convicted under section 6 of the East Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") vide order dated 25.7.1987 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana for violation of Clause 16 of the Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies JUDGMENT 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as "the JUDGMENT"). Smt. Rekha Jindal was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months while Darshan Kumar accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.11.1984, Shri Bakshish Singh, District Food & Supplies Officer, Ludhiana along with Surinder Singh, Assistant Food & Supplies Officer, Ludhiana, Shri Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, Food and Supplies and one Jarnail Singh son of Kartar Singh visited the brick kiln of M/s Vijay Bricks Works, Mullapur for checking the brick kiln. Darshan Kumar was asked by Shri Bakshish Singh to produce the sale and stock register relating to bricks. Clause 16 subclause 1 of the JUDGMENT enjoins upon brick kiln owner the maintenance of sale and stock register relating to bricks. It is further enjoined that the sale and stock register so maintained shall be made available for inspection at a conspicuous place in the premises of the kiln. Darshan Kumar, however, could not produce any such record and he told the DF&SO that such record was lying in his office at Ludhiana. DF&SO prepared report Ex. PD attested by Jarnail Singh, Shri Sukhdev Singh and Surinder Singh. Darshan Kumar also gave writing Ex. PA to the DF&SO in his own hand to the effect that the stock and sale register was not in his possession as asked for by DF&SO at his kiln at Mullapur and the same was lying in his office at Ludhiana. Shri Bakshish Singh addressed letter Ex. PC to SHO, PS Dakha for the registration of case against the accused on the basis of which case FIR No. 230 dated 10.12.1984 was registered at PS Dakha under Section 6 of the Act. Copies of partnership deed Ex. P1 and licence P2 were taken into possession from Darshan Kumar on 24.12.1984. After investigation, accused were challaned. Accused were charged under Section 6 of the Act by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana vide order dated 8.2.85. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

At the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana found the charge proved against the accused, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above vide order dated 25.7.87. In appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana maintained conviction and sentence vide order dated 19.10.87.

Darshan Kumar and Rekha Jindal have come up in revision to this court whereby they have assailed conviction and sentence recorded against them by the two courts below and prayed that they be acquitted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Magistrate fell in error when he observed that the record of stock and sale of bricks was not produced by the accused for the reason that they were selling bricks in black and indulging in profiteering and as such no record was being maintained by them. If they had maintained record of stock and sale of bricks, the sale of bricks in black would have been open to detection by the officers of Food & Supplies Department of the State of Punjab. Suffice it to say, there is nothing on the record to suggest that they had sold any bricks in black or that the bricks was a "controlled item" during those days.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that through writing Ex. PA, Darshan Kumar had told the DF&SO and his team that the necessary record of stock and sale of the bricks was lying in his office at Ludhiana. During crossexamination, Shri Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, Food & Supplies, Mullapur PW 1 expressed ignorance as to whether any opportunity had been given to the accused for the production of the stock and sale register allegedly lying in their office at Ludhiana. Writing Ex. PA could work against the accused if the accused had been given an opportunity to produce the stock and sale registe allegedly lying in their office at Ludhiana. Fact, thus, remains that the accused could not produce before the DF&SO Shri Bakshish Singh PW 5 the record of stock and sale of bricks when they visited their brick kiln on 16.11.84 situated at Mullapur. It was for the accused to request the DF&SO to accompany him to their office at Ludhiana and see the necessary record. Accused did not avail this opportunity and, therefore, they cannot be heard to say that they were maintaining the necessary record and keeping it at their office at Ludhiana. Shri Bakshish Singh, DF&SO PW 5, Shri Surinder Singh AF&SO, Ludhiana PW 4 and Shri Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, Food & Supplies Deptt. PW 1 have been supported in their statements by Jarnail Singh who is an independent witness and who has stated that the accused had failed to show them the necessary record when they visited their brick kiln at Mullapur on 16.11.84. In the opinion of the Bench, it was justifiably held that there was violation of Section 6 of the Act read with the JUDGMENT of 1972 (ibid).

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence that the sale of bricks was being carried on by the accused and that they were responsible for the conduct of the business of the partnership firm and merely because they were partners, they could not be labelled as carrying on the business of the sale of bricks. Suffice it to say, the accused were partners. Every partner is liable whether he is an active partner or a sleeping partner under the Act the object of which is to prevent the sale of bricks in black and ensure equitable distribution of bricks to the consumers and the availability of bricks at reasonable price. Since there is no evidence that there had been any sale of bricks by them in black, in the opinion of the Bench, ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are brought into play and the benefit thereof is given to the accused. Smt. Rekha Jindal has been let off with fine. She should be released on probation of good conduct. Similar treatment should be given to Darshan Kumar, as at the cost of repetition, it must be said that there is no evidence that they indulged into sale of bricks in black. So, it is ordered that both of them shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ each together with surety bond of the said amount each under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year whereby they shall undertake to be of good behaviour and keep peace for a period of one year. They shall further undertake that they shall not commit any offence during this period. They shall not incur any disqualification so far as the grant of licence to them for the manufacture of bricks is concerned in the wake of their release on probation of good conduct by this Court. Fine, if paid, shall be costs of proceedings which shall go to the coffers of the State. So, this revision is partly accepted and the sentence is modified of both the petitioners. Necessary bonds shall be furnished to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on before 20.7.98.

Revision partly allowed.