State of Haryana vs Amir Chand

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

The State has filed the present criminal appeal and it has been directed against the judgment dated 31.3.86 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra who allowed the appeal of Shri Amir Chand and Ramesh Chand and set aside the judgment and order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra who convicted the appellants in a case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced them till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each. In default of payment of fine, the accused were directed to undergo R.I. for two months each.

The brief facts of the case are that the accused are running a commission agent shop at Radaur with the same and style of M/s Amir Chand Ramesh Chand, Commission Agents, Radaur and they deal in food grains. On 14.8.1981 Assistant Food and Supply Officer Shri Ram Sarup reached the said firm of the accused at Radaur and found that the accused had kept in their possession 19 quintals 50 kgs. Masri. As per rules, the accused could keep only 10 quintals of Masri without a licence and it they wanted to have more than 10 quitals of Masri, they were obliged to obtain a licence under the Haryana Pulses Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1977 and in addition thereto they were obliged to display the price list of the stock of the commodities outside the shop. The Assistant Food and Supply Officer Shri Ram Sarup was accompanied by Inspector Jagir Singh and Analyst Jagdish. After the raid was conducted the police was also called in by sending a report Ex.PA to the Police Station Radaur. Police registered a case on the writing Ex.PA. On the spot the quantity was weighed and a memo Ex.PB was prepared. This masri was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PC. Certain documents i.e. receipts Ex.P.1 to Ex. P.8 were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PD.A writing was prepared which is Ex.PE on the record.

After investigation, it was concluded that both the accused were guilty of the said offence and the police put up the challan against both of them under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1977. The charge was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Prosecution examined there witnesses namely Shri Ram Sarup, Shri Jagir Singh and Rajinder Parshad besides placing on record the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8

Statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. They denied those circumstances and defence of the respondents was that Masri weighing 41/2 quitals belonged to one Nathi Ram and another quantity 5 quintals belonged to one Gopal Dass who had left the masri at the shop. In this manner the accused tried to justify their possession of 19 quintals and 50 kilograms of masri stating that only 10 quintals of same were owned and possessed by them on their own behalf. In defence, they have examined Shri Ved Pal (DW.1), Shri Nathi Ram (DW.2) and Shri Gopal Dass as DW.3.

Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate relied upon the story of the prosecution and held that charge against the accused stand proved as they were in possession 19 quintals 50 kilograms of masri dal and they had no requisite licence and that they had not displayed its price and quantity as required in the Haryana Pulses Dealers Licensing Rules, 1977. The accused were sentenced till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo R.I. for two months.

Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, accused filed first appeal in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, who vide judgment dated 31.3.1986 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court for the reasons given in paras No. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment. It may be mentioned here that there First Appellate Court made distinction that notification applies only to masoor and not dal masri and therefore, the accused are not liable for conviction and sentence. The State has filed the present appeal. This appeal was filed in the year 1986. It came up for hearing before Hon''ble Mr. Justice J.S. Sekhon and Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.S. Rathore and the State was given an opportunity to examine some expert in order to establish that there is no distinction between dal masoor and dal masri and in these circumstances, the accused are liable to conviction. Shri Ramesh Kumar appeared on behalf of the State and he stated as follows to the questions put to him by the State counsel :

"There is no difference between the Masri and Masoor Dal as there are different local names of the same pulse."

This witness was crossexamined by Shri Anil Khetarpal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused but the witness categorically stated that there is no difference between masri and masoor dal.

I have heard Shri J.S. Ahlawat, Advocate on behalf of the State and Shri Anil Khetarpal Advocate on behalf of the State and with their assistance have gone through the record.

The only point which survives for determination whether there is difference between names of dal masri and dal masoor. Though Shri Anil Khetarpal has tried to make a distinction that dal masri and dal masoor are two different food grains and that the notification only attracts to dal masoor, therefore, the respondents could not be convicted for the offence under the Essential Commodities Act. I am not convinced with the argument raised by Shri Anil Khetarpal and especially in view of the statement of Shri Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Agronomist (Pulses) who appeared a witness in this case on behalf of the Haryana State. This witness was employed in Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. He is a highly qualified person. He is M.Sc. Ph.D. (Agronomy) and has sufficient experience as scientist. This witness has categorically stated that there is no difference between Dal Masoor and Dal Masri. These are two names of the same pulse. In this view of the matter, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to obtain a licence beyond the capacity of 10 quintals and also it was obligatory on their part to display the price list. Thus they were rightly convicted by the Trial Court.

Resultantly, I accept this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and restore the judgment of the Trial court. The sentence in this case was till rising of the court. Respondent have already paid the fine to the State. No further relief is possible to the State. The appeal is allowed.