Dinesh Kumar vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.—Dinesh Kumar son of Sham Lal, resident of Gharaunda was challaned under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for having contravened the conditions of the licence as well as the provisions of Haryana Food Grains Dealers Licensing and Price Control JUDGMENT 1978, and also of Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) JUDGMENT 1979, in the Special Court constituted under section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act at Karnal. Mr. S. K. Jain, Presiding Officer of the Court found him guilty on two counts i.e. that he had contravened the provisions of clauses 3, 4, 8 and 10 of the licence issued under the Haryana Food Grains Dealers Licensing and Price Control JUDGMENT 1978 and secondly that he had contravened the provisions of Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) JUDGMENT 1979, and sentenced him to three months R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 2000/; in default of payment of fine further R. 1. for two months on the first count and to R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 2500/; in default of payment of fine further R. 1. for three months under the second count. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this appeal.

The prosecution case is that Jiwan Ram Punia, Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies Department P. 4 accompanied by Amar Singh, Sub Inspector, Food and Supplies Department, Gharaunda, checked the premises of Messrs Sham Lal Rice Mills. After inspection, a report Exhibit PA was prepared and submitted to A.F.S.O. on the basis of which ultimately D.F.C. Karnal got recorded F.I.R. Exhibit PC in Police Station, Gharaunda. After registration of the case, the matter was investigated and the appellant challaned, tried and convicted and sentenced, as mentioned in the earlier part of the order.

The case of the prosecution is that Dinesh Kumar appellant is the proprietor of Messrs Sham Lal Rice Mills, Gharaunda. Licence was issued to Messrs Sham Lal Rice Mills, Gharaunda, in the prescribed form and a copy of which Exhibit PF/4 was tendered in evidence.

On January 4, 1984, Jiwan Ram Punia, Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, along with others inspected the premises of the mills and found that during the period with effect from October, 1983 to December 5, 1983, Messrs Sham Lal Rice Mills had purchased 6022 quintals and 85 Kgs. of paddy. This was disclosed in their fortnightly reports submitted earlier. It was further disclosed in the report that they had milled 483 quintals and the balance paddy i.e. 5539 quintals was with the mills 371 quintals of rice had been manufactured and this has also been mentioned in the report. It was out of the remaining paddy. Out of this rice 237 quintals 50 kgs. was given to the Government as levy share. On physical verification by Jiwan Ram Punia P.W. 4, it was found that the stock of paddy with the mill was only 1900 quintets and 50 kgs. and of rice 173 quintals and broken rice 202 quintets. The paddy stock was found deficient and the rice stock was found in excess as compared to the documents.

It was also found that no stock board was fixed or displayed in the premises of Messrs Sham Lal Rice Mills. The stock register was not shown to Jiwan Ram Punia. It is one of the conditions of the Licence that the stock board is to be filled up. As there were a number of infringements of the conditions of licence, the appellant was challaned as mentioned earlier.

In support of prosecution case, P.W. 1 Shri Teja Singh, Retired Deputy Director, Food and Supplies Department, Karnal, deposed that on January 4. 1984, he was posted as District Food and Supplies Controller at Karnal. Jiwan Ram P.W. Inspector and Amar Singh Sub Inspector, Food and Supplies had reported through the A. F. S. 0. that on checking of the record and physical verification of the stock of paddy and rice of Messrs Sham Lal Rice Mills, Gharaunda, there was shortage in the paddy stock and excess in the rice stock. They had made report Exhibit PA. Shri Teja Singh had signed report Exhibit PC and complaint Exhibit PB.

P.W. 2 Lakhmi son of Raghbir Singh, Accountant of Messrs Jati Ram Sushil Kumar. Gharaunda. has deposed that he is working as an Accountant of Messrs Jati Ram Sushil Kumar and his firm had been sending paddy for milling purposes to Messrs Sham Lal Rice Mills, Gharaunda. He has produced record to support his statement P.W. 3 Jai Bhagwan, Munim of Messrs Durga Trading Company, Gharaunda, has also deposed that his firm had dealings with Messrs Sham Lal Rice Mills, Gharaunda. This firm is owned by Dinesh Kumar appellant. He has also produced his accounts to show that there were business dealings qua sale/purchase of paddy between the two firms. Jiwan Rani Punia P.W. 4 Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, has given details of the prosecution case and has proved as to how much stock was required to be with the firm and how much deficiency and excess in stock was found on physical verification. P.W. 5 S.I. Joginder Singh, P.W. 6 S.I. Dev Datt and P.W. 7 A.S.I. Ajmer Singh are the investigating officers. After close of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. He denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he being a sleeping partner, does not know anything about the running of the mill. D. W. I Chanda Singh was examined in defence. He stated that Dinesh Kumar resides at Bombay and there were rains in 1984 and the paddy stock lying with Messrs Sham Lal Rice Mills was damaged.

The learned trial Court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant as mentioned earlier.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.

It is established by the testimony of Lakhmi P.W. 2 and Jai Bhagwan P.W. 3 that the firm Messrs Sham Lal Rice Mills had purchased rice and it is further stated by Jiwan Ram Punia P.W. 4 that on physical verification there was difference in the stock. It is further in the evidence that certain conditions of the licence such as maintenance of the stock register, display of the stock board etc. were not complied with. Nothing has been brought to discredit the P. Ws. They have made consistent statements and I have no reason to disbelieve their testimony. It is established on record that the appellant did not maintain correct accounts.

He did not submit true and correct returns nor did he fix or display any stock board on the entrance or at some prominent place in the premises and he did not make accountbooks available to Jiwan Ram Punia P.W. 4 on January 4, 1984. These acts amounted to infringement of conditions of the licence. As there was variation in the register and the stock available at the spot, he has contravened the provisions of the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) JUDGMENT 1979 also. The petitioner "has not led any evidence in support of his plea that he is a sleeping partner and had nothing to do with the business of the mill." He being a partner, unless it is shown that he had nothing to do with the running of the mill, shall be liable and the trial Court was justified in convicting him. The trial Court has rightly accepted the prosecution version and I do not find any ground to differ with the same. I confirm his conviction.

Taking an overall view of the matter, I feel that reduction in the sentence on the second count from six months to three months is called for. I order accordingly. However, the payment of fine of Rs. 2500/; in default of payment of fine further R. 1. for three months under the second count shall remain. The apparent''s sentence on the first count i.e. infringement of the licence condition as three months R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 2000/ in default of payment of fine further R. 1. for two months shall remain Both the sentences shall run concurrently.