Gurdip Singh vs State of Haryana

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

These two appeals are preferred by the accused against their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, constituted under the Essential Commodities, Act, Kurukshetra, in the Essential Commodities Case No. 2 of 1986 dated 10.8.1987.

The Ist accused is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 1987 while accused Nos. 2 and 3 preferred Appeal No. 480 of 1987. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are disposed of together by this common judgment.

The accusedappellants have been prosecuted for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Section 120B IPC and 468 IPC.

According to the case of the prosecution, the accused adulterated kerosene oil with petrol and carrying on business of kerosene and petrol without any licence and that they were not supplying kerosene to the ration card holders. On the other hand, they are forging signatures and thumb impressions of the ration card holders in the distribution registers and selling the kerosene to others at high prices. It is further case of the prosecution that the father of Ist Accused Ajit Sigh Manchanda was the sole proprietor of the Petrol Pump installed in the name and style of Haryana Filling Station, Ismailabad and his licence was valid upto 31.3.1986 and the said Ajit Singh Manchanda died four/five months prior to 9.5.1985 which is the date of registration of FIR No. 113 Police Station, Thaska in this case. The Ist accused used to work in the petrol pump of his father and he was also selling the kerosene oil. Since the Depot of Kerosene Oil was also with him, the other two accused namely Ashok Kumar and Ram Kishan were assisting the Ist accused in his business.

On 9.5.1985 Vijay Kumar Inspector, Food and Supplies alongwith Rattan Singh Sub Inspector, Food and Supplies and SubInspector of Police raided the premises of M/s Haryana Filling Station and obtained the relevant stock and distribution registers and also took the samples of kerosene oil and petrol from the petrol pump which revealed that the kerosene oil and petrol were adulterated and they also found the excess quantity of kerosene oil when the stock register was verified. Thereupon a case was registered and the samples were sent for examination. It is also alleged that the Ist accused Gurdip Singh did not get the licence transferred after the death of his father Ajit Singh. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against all the accused.

On a consideration of the material placed before him, the learned Special Judge framed a charge against the Ist accused Gurdip Singh for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for contravention of clause 3 of Kerosene Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1976 and clauses 6 and 9 of Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality JUDGMENT 1977. All the accused were further charged for the offence under Section 120B I.P.C. The 3rd accused Ram Kishan was charged under Section 468 I.P.C. for forging the entries in the sale register. The accused denied the commission of offence.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge convicted all the accused for the offence under Section 120B I.P.C. The Ist accused Gurdip Singh was further convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for carrying on business of petrol without licence and for having been found in excess stock of the kerosene oil and he also convicted accused No. 3 for the offence under Section 468 I.P.C. The learned Special Judge sentenced all the accused to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs. 100/ each for the offence under Section 120B I.P.C. The 3rd accused Ram Kishan was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 100/. The Ist accused Gurdip Singh was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the accusedappellants filed these two appeals.

First I will take up the appeal filed by A1 Gurdip Singh. According to the case of the prosecution, he contravened the provisions of Essential Commodities Act since he was selling the kerosene oil and running the petrol pump without any valid licence. But the fact remains that the licence was granted to Haryana Filling Station of which the father of the appellant Gurdip Singh was the sole proprietor. On his death his son namely the Ist accused Gurdip Singh succeeded to his business and it will enure to the benefit of the Ist accused. When the Ist accused having succeeded to his father continues the business, it cannot be said the business carried on by him is illegal. There is no dispute of the fact that the licence issued in the name of `Haryana Filling Station'' was valid upto 31.3.1986. Therefore, on the date of raid by the Officials of Food and Supplies Department, there was a valid licence with the Ist accused.

It is the further case of the prosecution that the signatures and thumb impressions of the ration card holders were forged in the register. The learned Special Judge relied on the report of the Finger Prints Bureau for coming to the conclusion that the signatures in the Sale Register were found to have been fictitiously made by Ashok Kumar accused. But PWs 4 to 7 who were ration card holders turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution did not examine any witness whose signatures were found to be forged. On the other hand PW4 to PW7 who were ration card holders deposed that they drew the Kerosene oil from the Depot and the entries made in the register were correct. The learned Special Judge also erred in relying the statement of PW9 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate since he resiled from his statement. In fact in his statement PW9 stated that he was kept in the Police Station for two days and he was beaten and was made to give a statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra who has been examined as PW12. Therefore no reliance can be placed on the statement of PW9. The only evidence against the accused is that of PW1, Inspector Food and Supplies, and that of Assistant SubInspector, Food and Supplies Officer, PW8. According to the learned Special Judge, their evidence is not controverted that the accused were dealing in Kerosene oil without licence. This is factually incorrect. Even according to the prosecution, licence issued to Haryana Filling Station was valid upto 31.3.1986. So when the Filling Station was checked on 9.5.1985, there was a valid licence in favour of Haryana Filling Station which has been inherited by accused No. 1 on the death of his father Ajit Singh. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and clause 3 of Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1976 cannot be sustained.

As already pointed out, the prosecution was not able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the signatures of the rationcard holders have been forged. The evidence of Forensic Science Laboratory cannot be relied upon without any further corroboration. PWs 4 to 7 did not support the case of the prosecution. According to the report of the Finger Prints Bureau the signatures of PW4 to PW7 were also forged. But on the other hand not only they admitted their signatures in the registers but also stated that they drew the ration on their cards. Therefore, the conviction of the 3rd accused Ram Kishan for the offence under Section 468 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. Thus there is no evidence except the evidence of Hand Writing Expert to hold that the Kerosene oil was not distributed to the ration card holders. It is for the prosecution to examine ration card holders to show that they did not receive the kerosene oil from the Depot. The ration card holders may depute somebody to receive the kerosene oil on their behalf and that person so deputed might have signed the name of ration card holders. Even the signatures in the registers have not been compared with their specimen signatures available with the department. Therefore no value can be attached either to the evidence of the Expert or to his report. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that the evidence of an Expert is to be treated like any other evidence. It requires corroboration.

Further there is no evidence that all the three accused conspired for committing any illegal act. The learned Special Judge convicted the accused for an offence under Section 120B I.P.C. only on surmises, presumptions and assumptions. It is well settled law that the guilt of the accused have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 120B IPC cannot be sustained. There is also no evidence to support the case of the prosecution that either the petrol or the kerosene oil was adulterated. Even the Special Judge did not give any specific finding that the kerosene oil and petrol were mixed up and they were adulterated.

On going through the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted.

I accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge on the accusedappellants in both the appeals and acquit them of the charges framed against them. The amount of fine, if paid, is directed to be refunded to them. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Appeals allowed.