Nathu Ram vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This order will dispose of four Criminal Appeals Nos. 201SB (Nathu Ram v. The State of Punjab), 210SB (Darshan Kumar v. The State of Punjab), 213SB (Des Raj v. The State of Punjab) and 214SB of 1986 (Ramji Dass v. The State of Punjab) as the occurrence in all the four appeals was result of a raid conducted in the same village.

The prosecution case in all the four appeals is that on August 17, 1983, Mohinder Singh, District Food and Supplies Officer, Mansa, got a tip to the effect that some shop keepers of village Bainiwal were storing wheat beyond the permissible limit for sale. He along with Jagan Nath and Ram Lal Inspectors of Food and Supplies went to Police Station Jaurikian from where he joined Manjit Singh ASI and two Police Constables and then proceeded to village Bainiwal. From village Bainiwal, Jangir Singh Chowkidar and Avtar Singh Sarpanch PWs were coopted. Nathu Ram, Darshan Kumar, Des Raj and Ramji Dass accused appellants were found in their respective shops. Their shops and houses were raided and the following quantity of wheat was found which was in excess of permissible quantity :

i) 26 bags and 102 half bags full of wheat weighing 91 quints 40 kilograms were found at the shop if Nathu Ram;

ii) 40 bags and 89 half bags full of wheat weighing 75 quintals 20 kilograms were found at the house which is in a portion of the shop of Darshan Kumar;

iii) 30 bags and 17 half bags full of wheat weighing 35 quintals 95 kgs. were found at the house and shop of Des Raj; and

iv) 15 bags and 35 half bags full of wheat weighing 32 quintals were found at the house which is contiguous to the shop of Ramji Das.

Since the appellants failed to produce any licence for storage of wheat in excess of permissible limits, four separate cases were registered against them at Police Station, Jaurkian and after investigation they were challaned and convicted.

In all the four cases i.e. against Nathu Ram, Darshan Kumar, Des Raj and Ramji Dass, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, but only Mohinder Singh and Jagan Nath PWs are important for the decision of the case. Both of them have stated that on April 17, 1983, a raid was conducted on the premises of the appellants and wheat was recovered from their possession.

After close of the prosecution case, Nathu Ram pleaded as under :

"I am innocent the wheat was stored in my house by Jalaur Singh s/o Nand Singh of my village who had taken a portion of my house on rent.

Darshan Kumar pleaded as under :

"I am innocent. Recovered wheat was stored by Devinder Singh s/o Hazura Singh of my village in my house."

Des Raj pleaded as under :

"I am innocent. Mal Singh had placed 30 quintals of wheat in my house as his house had fallen in the heavy rains. Six quintals of wheat only belonged to me."

and Ramji Dass pleaded as under :

"Sukhdev Singh of our village stored 23 quintets of wheat in my house Rest of wheat belongs to me, I am innocent."

In support of the defence version, Nathu Ram examined Jalau Singh as DW 1, Darshan Kumar examined Devinder Singh as DW 1, Des Raj examined Mal Singh as. DW I and Jangir Singh DW 2 and Ramji Dass examined Sukhdev Singh and Jangir Singh as DW I and DW 2 respectively. The 1 DWs. examined supported the versions given by the appellants.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are not covered by the definition of dealer as there is no evidence that they indulged in sale or purchase of wheat. He further contended that mere possession of wheat is not punishable.

I have considered the argument and find that their is no force in the same. The order issued by the Department of Food and Supplies on April 27, 1982, was under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Section 2(b) of Punjab Wheat Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1982, defines dealer which reads as under :

"dealer means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of wheat in quantity of ten quintals or more at any one time, but does not include a person who

(i) stores wheat produced by him by personal cultivation; and

(ii) does not engage in the business of purchase, or sale of wheat.

Explanation Any person, other than a person producing wheat by personal cultivation, who stores wheat in quantity of ten quintets or more at any one time shall unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be carrying on business as a dealer."

The Explanation to subsection (b) of section 2 clearly states that possession of wheat beyond the permissible limit by any person who is not a cultivator in an offence and is punishable. There is evidence that the appellants are not cultivators of land. In this situation, the appellants are covered by the definition of `dealer'' under the Punjab Wheat Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1982, and the trial Court has justifiably convicted them. I therefore, maintain their conviction.

The learned counsel has submitted, that the incident relates to the year 1983 and the accusation against the appellants is only of storage of wheat, therefore, they pray leniency the matter of sentence. As they have faced the agony of trial for the last six years and the offence attributed to them is not heinous, I am of the view that it will be expedient if appellants are released on probation of good conduct. It is ordered accordingly and they are directed to be released on their entering into a bond the in the sum of Rs. 2000/ each with one surety of the like amount each, for a period of two years. They shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during the said period and to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during the above period by the Court. The fine imposed on them by the trial Court shall be converted into litigation expense".