Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ashok Nankram Ahuja, was convicted by the Special Judge, Jalgaon, in Summary Case No.6/1996 for contravening an order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) thereof. He was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000, with a default sentence of 20 days' simple imprisonment. The case arose from an incident on 7 June 1995, when Tahsildar Sikandar Tadvi (PW4) visited the appellant's godown in Bhusawal along with his driver Iccharam Chaudhari (PW5) and found 22 bags of sugar. The Tahsildar sent for Supply Inspecting Officer Jagannath Patil (PW1), and a panchanama was conducted, seizing the sugar. The appellant was present at the time. The Tahsildar recorded the appellant's statement (Exh.23) and directed PW1 to lodge a complaint, which was done on 8 June 1995 at Bazar Peth Police Station, Bhusawal, leading to Crime No.47/1995. The offence was registered by ASI Madhukar Bagul (PW7). The prosecution examined seven witnesses. The appellant's defence was that the sugar belonged to his father, who was a licensed dealer, and that he was only a servant. The trial court rejected this defence and convicted him. On appeal, the High Court considered the evidence, including the panchanama and the testimony of PW1 and PW4, and found that the prosecution had proved that the appellant was in possession of 22 quintals of sugar without a licence, exceeding the 10 quintal limit for unlicensed retailers under the Maharashtra Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963. The court held that the burden was on the appellant to show that he had a licence, which he failed to do. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Contravention of Order - Possession of Sugar in Excess of Permissible Limit - The appellant was found in possession of 22 quintals of sugar without a licence, exceeding the 10 quintal limit for unlicensed retailers under the Maharashtra Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963. The court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution proved the seizure and the accused failed to show he had a licence. (Paras 1-3) B) Evidence - Panchanama and Seizure Witnesses - Credibility - The court found the testimony of the panch witness and the Tahsildar credible, and the panchanama was proved. The accused's defence that the sugar belonged to his father was not supported by evidence. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for contravening the order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) thereof, is sustainable on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act are upheld.
Law Points
- Essential Commodities Act
- 1955
- Section 3
- Section 7(1)(a)(ii)
- Maharashtra Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order
- 1963
- Possession of sugar in excess of permissible limit without licence
- Burden of proof on accused to show licence
- Conviction based on panchanama and seizure witnesses
