Jagdish Rai Jain vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sodhi, J.

Jagdish Rai Jain, the proprietor of M/s Jain Rice Mills, Choorwali, District Jalandhar, the appellant here, stands convicted for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for having violated the provisions of sub rule (2) of rule 7 of the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers and Licensing JUDGMENT 1978 and thereby contravened Section 3(1)(d)(h) and (i) of the said Act. The charge being that the appellant had not properly maintained the record of rice and ricebran and further that the rice and ricebran at the rice sheller, did not tally with the registers maintained by him. A sentence of one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ was imposed upon the appellant in this behalf.

The case against the appellants is that on August 31, 1984, the Food and Supplies Officer Shri Jaswant Singh Sandhu, accompanied by the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer Shri Shree Pal Pathak and Parshotam Singh. SubInspector of the department went to the premises of M/s Jain Rice Mills. The appellant Jagdish Rai Jain was not present there, but his munim Inderjit was there. Inderjit was asked to show the record, but no record was produced. later, on physical verification, 88 quintals of rice and 9 quintal of ricebran were found lying there. A memo of this effect was prepared besides a report signed by the munim Inderjit regarding the verification of the stock at the premises. This report being exhibit PB.

It is said that on September 4, 1984, the said munim Inderjit produced three registers before the Food and Supplies Officer. These being Stock Register, exhibit P/1 of rice IR 8; P/2 of rice PR106 and exhibit P/3 regarding ricebran. These registers contained entries upto August 30, 1984 but there were no entries therein from August 31, 1984 to September 4, 1984. The fist part of the charge, namely ; that the registers had not been properly maintained was sought to be founded upon the omission of entries in these registers for the period August 31, 1984 to September 4, 1984.

As regards the other part of the charge namely ; that the rice found in the mill premises did not tally with the entries in the stock registers, there is in the first instance the 9 quintals of ricebran, which was found there on August 31, 1984 whereas in the stock register, the quantity, in hand, was shows to be nil. Further, the other rice found in the premises was much less than that reflected in the stock registers, namely; rice IR8 was short to the extent of 85 quintals 800 grams and rice PR 106, 335 quintals and 50 kilograms.

In so far as the case pertaining the stockregisters not being properly maintained is concerned, conflicting versions have been put forth by the prosecution and the appellant. As mentioned earlier, the case of the prosecution being that these registers were not produced till September 4, 1984, whereas the version of the appellant is that they had been produced before the officials of the Food and Supplies Department on August 31, 1984. Both PW 1 Jaswant Singh Sandhu, District Food and Supplies Officer as also PW 2 Shri Pal Pathak deposed to the prosecution version in this behalf, the contrary testimony being that of the munim DW 1 Inderjit. What must be construed as creating a dent in the prosecution case here is the testimony of PW 2 Shree Pal Pathak, Assistant food and Supplies Officer, who deposed that the bill books of the rice sheller were inspected both by him and PW 1 Jaswant Singh on August 31, 1984. It would be apparent, therefore that the records were not withheld by the employees of the appellant. What is more significant is the nonproduction by the prosecution of the report made by the Food and Supplies Officer after his inspection of the ricesheller premises to his superior officers. Indeed, there is no written record forthcoming to corroborate the statement of PW 1 Jaswant Singh Sandhu that the stockregisters were not shown till September 4, 1984. The first written mention of this record not having been produced before that date, is contained in the report exhibit PC made to the police on September 18, 1984 by which date even on his own showing the registers had been produced before him.

The other relevant aspect of the matter is that admittedly no notice was ever served upon the appellant to produce his records. In these circumstances, it would clearly not be safe to fasten criminal liability on the ground that he had not properly maintained his records.

The other and more serious limb of the charge against the appellant is that the stock of rice found at the site did not tally with the entries is the stock register. There is no dispute that as per entries in the stock register and what was found at the ricesheller, there was a shortfall of 85 quintals and 800 grams of IR8 rice and 1335 quintals and 50 kilograms of PR106 rice. The case set up by the appellant in this behalf being that he had sold this rice on 31.8.1984 to Messrs R.S. Rice Mills. This was deposed to by DW 1 Inderjit and DW 3 Daulat Ram, Clerk and was sought to be corroborated by the testimony of DW 2 Jiwan Singh, General Secretary of the Adampur Truck Union, who deposed that on August 31, 1984, nine trucks were sent by Messrs Jain Rice Mills for transportation of rice to Amritsar. Next to note is the testimony of DW 6 Surinder Singh, Manager of Messrs R.S. Rice Mills, who deposed to the purchase of this rice on August 31, 1984 from the appellant''s mill. A reading of this testimony would also show that payments have also been made on different dates to the appellant for this rice. These payments were made by cheque and this testimony stands corroborated by that of DW 5 Manohar Lal of Punjab National Bank, Amritsar.

The most significant and important witness here is DW 7 Gulzari Lal, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, who deposed that on the directions of the District Food and Supplies Controller, Jalandhar, he mad an enquiry regarding the sale of rice by Messrs Jain Rice Mills to Messrs R.S. Rice Mills on August 31, 1984. After enquiry and investigation, he verified and confirmed that this sale had indeed been made and he reported accordingly to the District Food and Supplies Controller by his letter Exhibit DW 7/A. There is clearly no warrant to disregard or cast any doubt upon this testimony. The material on record thus clearly establishes the defence put forth by the appellant, namely, that the shortage detected was in fact of the sold on that day to Messrs R.S. Rice Mills. This being so, there was no shortfall in the rice as found at the site on that day.

In so far ricebran is concerned, the appellant really had no defence to offer inasmuch as, according to the stock register, there should have been no ricebran at the premises, whereas the Food and Supplies Officer found 9 quintals of ricebran there. It was sought to be suggested by the appellant that this ricebran was only dust. This plea is, however, not substantiated by any evidence brought on record. The violation of the provisions of the Punjab Food Grain Dealers (Licensing and Price Control) JUDGMENT 1978 in respect of this 9 quintals of rice bran, thus stands established. Considering, however, the minor nature of the offence that this constitutes, it would clearly meet the ends of justice while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, that instead of sentencing the appellant he be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years from today. This appeal is consequently hereby accepted to this extent.