Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Jayendra Sadarmal Talereja, was convicted by the Special Judge, Kolhapur on 4th November 1997 for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for violating sub-clause (3) of clause 6 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500, with a default sentence of one month. The case arose from a secret information received on 19th April 1996 at Laxmipuri Police Station, Kolhapur, that some shopkeepers were selling bogus or duplicate gas regulators. The police raided Heera General Stores and then Geeta General Stores, where the appellant was present. Six regulators were seized from Geeta General Stores in the presence of panchas, and a panchanama was drawn. The first informant, Bhikaji Gokhale, lodged a report leading to the registration of Crime No. 60 of 1996. At trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. PW1, PW2, and PW3, who were panch witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. PW2 specifically denied the appellant's presence at the shop, and PW3 denied the seizure of six regulators. PW4, the first informant, deposed in line with the FIR but admitted in cross-examination that he had not obtained the signature of PW1 on the panchanama. PW5, the investigating officer, admitted that the raiding party did not take assistance of any decoy witnesses, did not seize the license of Geeta General Stores or documents showing the appellant's ownership, and that the seized regulators were sent to Bharat Petroleum Corporation for examination, which reported that they were genuine regulators. The High Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The panch witnesses had turned hostile, and the evidence of the investigating officer alone was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Moreover, the seized regulators were found to be genuine, which completely undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The bail bonds were cancelled.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act - Conviction under Section 7 read with Section 3 - Prosecution for possessing bogus gas regulators - The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Kolhapur for violating sub-clause (3) of clause 6 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the panch witnesses turned hostile and the seized regulators were later found to be genuine. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 1-6) B) Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Effect of hostile witnesses on prosecution case - In the present case, all three panch witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's version. The court held that the evidence of the investigating officer alone was insufficient to sustain the conviction, especially when the seized articles were found to be genuine. (Paras 3-6) C) Essential Commodities Act - Burden of Proof - Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The court emphasized that the burden lies on the prosecution to establish all ingredients of the offence. Since the regulators were certified as genuine by Bharat Petroleum Corporation, the foundation of the prosecution case collapsed. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act for violating Clause 6(3) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Essential Commodities Act
- 1955
- Section 7 read with Section 3
- Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order
- 1988
- Clause 6(3)
- burden of proof
- hostile witness
- acquittal
