Under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act,1955.

Transcription

1 IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE : : : : : JORHAT. PRESENT : Md. D. Ullah, A.J.S., For the prosecution... Mr. S.Ali, Addl.P.P. For the accused person... Mrs. I. Chetia, Advocate. Ref. : C.R.Case No. 68 of State of Assam... Complainant. -vs- Monoj Kalita... Accused person. Under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act,1955. Charge framed on Evidence recorded on ; Statements recorded on Arguments heard on Judgment delivered on J U D G E M E N T. 1. This case was initiated on receipt of a complaint, filed by Sri Niranjan Borah, Inspector, Food & Civil Supplies, & Consumer Affairs, Jorhat, which was duly forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, alleging therein that on at about 3-30 p.m., he, under the leadership of Sri Gurdeep Singh Paneswar, S.D.O. (Sadar), Jorhat, conducted a surprise raid at a mobile restaurant of one Monuj Kalita at A.T. Road in front of ASTC Office, On search, they found one domestic LPG cylinder ( 14.2 Kg), being connected with burner and pressure regulator and the same was being used in preparation of food items for commercial purpose without having Contd...P/2.

2 (Page...2) C.R.68/13. B.I.S. specification. On demand, said Manuj Kalita could not produce any supporting document and then a written statement is obtained from said Manuj Kalita in this regard. Thus, Manuj Kalita was found contravening the provisions of Clauses 3(1)(c) and 4(1)(e) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order,2000. Thereafter, the complainant, seized the domestic cylinder (14.2 Kg) along with other equipments in presence of witnesses and gave the same in zimma of one Sri Satyabrata Baruah, Proprietor of M/s Gas Co. Agency, Jorhat, for custody after executing zimmanama. 2. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the case was registered and summonses were issued to the accused person. In due course, the accused person, on receipt of summons, appeared before the Court and the copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as per provisions of law. After hearing the learned counsel of both sides, having found prima facie materials for contravention of Clause 3(1) and 7(1)(c) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000, which is punishable u/s 7 of Essential Commodities Act,1955, charge under the said section was framed against the accused person. The contents of the charge so framed, were read over and explained to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both sides. 3. The prosecution, in support its case, examined two witnesses in the form of :- P.W.1 Sri Niranjan Borah, the complainant, and P.W.2 Sri Anil Gayan. The accused person was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein also the accused denied the allegations leveled against him. He also declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both sides. During argument, learned Addl.P.P. has stated that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge leveled against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, learned defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that the alleged LPG cylinder was seized from the possession of the accused Contd...P/3.

3 (Page...3) C.R.68/13. person and that the accused person had used the cylinder in any way. Accordingly, learned defence counsel has prayed for acquittal of the accused person. POINT FOR DETERMINATION : 4. Now, the sole point to be determined in this case is :- Whether accused Manuj Kalita, on or about at about 3-30 p.m. in his chat house, situated at A.T. Road in front of A.S.T.C. Office, Jorhat, was found unauthorizedly and illegally possessing domestic L.P.G. cylinder, pressure regulator etc. contravening the clauses 3(1)(c) and 7(1)(c) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) order, 2000, and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955? DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF : 5. Now, let me discuss the evidence on record to decide the above point. P.W.1 Niranjan Bora, the complainant, deposed that on , while he was working as Joint Director of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department at Jorhat, he, under the leadership of S.D.O. (Sadar), Jorhat, went out for making enquiry about using domestic cylinder for commercial purpose by any person and during inspection, they found one person selling tea, bread etc. in a mobile push cart after preparing the same using domestic cylinder, regulator etc. Then he seized the said domestic LPG cylinder, regulator etc. from the said person vide Ext.1 wherein Ext.1(1) is his signature. Accused Monuj Kalita also put his signature on the seizure list vide Ext.1(2) and Ext.1(3). Thereafter, he gave the seized cylinder and the pressure regulator in zimma of M/s Gasco agency, Jorhat, which is an authorized dealer under I.O.C. Ext.2 is the zimmanama, wherein Ext.2 (1) is his signature. Thereafter, he filed an offence report through the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, against the accused before the Court. Ext.3 is the said offence report wherein Ext.3(1) is his signature. The offence report was forwarded to the Court by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, vide Ext.4, the forwarding letter. Ext.5 is the statements of the accused made before them wherein Ext.5(1) is the signature of the accused. 6. In his cross-examination P.W.1 stated that he conducted raid in the chat Contd...P/4.

4 (Page...4) C.R.68/13. house of the accused on the main road, which is a busy place. Though the accused was demanded for the supporting documents for possessing such LPG cylinder, but he could not produce any such document. They also could not collect any document in support of the ownership of the chat house. The defence suggested to him that the accused was not the owner of the said chat house; that the accused along with another was taking tea in that chat house at that time; that the accused did not give his statements vide Ext.5, where there is no signature of witness Anil Gayan; that the signature of the accused on Ext.5 was obtained forcefully and that he has filed this case against the accused falsely without proper investigation. But this witness denied all those suggestions. This witness has also stated that though he made attempt to find out some witnesses from the place of occurrence, but they refused to become a witness. 7. P.W.2 Anil Gayan deposed that he does not know the accused person. He has a Pan shop near A.S.T.C. Gate, In the year 2012, Police obtained his signature on a sheet of paper. Ext.1 is the said paper and Ext.1(4) is his signature thereon. 8. In his cross-examination P.W.2 stated that he does not know why his signature was obtained on that paper and he knows nothing about the alleged occurrence. He put his signature in the seizure list inside the waiting shed, situated inside Court campus. 9. Appreciating the above evidence on record, it is found that the defence plea is of total denial. Defence has also pleaded that the accused was a customer, who went to take tea in the chat house in question and was never the owner of the same. Defence has also pleaded that nothing was seized from the accused and the prosecuting agency, i.e. the Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies, has falsely shown him as accused in this case. Although P.W.1 Niranjan Borah in his evidence has stated that he had seized one domestic LPG cylinder, one regulator and one rubber pipe from the possession of the accused vide Ext.1, seizure list, but during cross-examination he has stated that they have not received any document to show that the accused is the owner of the said chat house. P.W.1 has further stated in his cross-examination that the place of search was in Contd...P/5.

5 (Page...5) C.R.68/13. front of the ASTC office on the main road which is a busy place. P.W.1 further stated during cross-examination that he had not signed on Ext.5 stating that he himself wrote the same. 10. P.W.2 Anil Gayan, the sole independent prosecution witness, has stated in his cross-examination that he had signed on Ext.1, seizure list, in the waiting room of the Court campus and he does not know about the incident. He also does not know about the reason for which his signature was obtained on the said paper. 11. As per the informant, P.W.1, the place of seizure was in front of the A.S.T.C. bus stand, which is a busy place and as such, there should not have been nonavailability of the public witnessing the seizure of the L.P.G. cylinder, regulator etc. from the possession of the accused person. But the prosecution could not able to bring those witnesses, rather the sole witness of seizure, i.e. P.W.2 Anil Gayan, has not supported P.W.1 in respect of the seizure. That apart, although P.W.1 during his evidence has stated that he had conducted the search along with the S.D.O. (Sadar), but the prosecution has neither listed him nor examined him as a witness. Therefore, in view of lack of corroboration from any independent reliable witness, in a situation where availability of such witnesses was possible and natural, the sole evidence of P.W.1, the complainant, cannot be believable to come to a conclusion of the guilt of the accused person in respect of commission of the alleged offence. 12. In view of the above position and on the basis of the available materials on record, I have found that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the accused person, at the relevant point of time, was the owner of the Chat house in question and was possessing the seized domestic LPG cylinder, regulator and the rubber pipe and also used the same for commercial purpose in the said chat house. 13. Upon consideration of the above materials on record, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused person for commission of offence u/s 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, accused Manuj Kalita is acquitted of the said offence and set at liberty forthwith. His bail bond stands cancelled and the bailer is discharged Contd...P/6.

6 (Page...6) C.R.68/13. from the liability. 14. The items, which were seized in connection with this case, be forfeited to the Government as per section 7(1)(b) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in due course. 15. Signed, sealed and delivered in the open Court on this 6 th day of April, 2015, at Dictated & corrected by me : Transcribed & typed by : P.K.Bora, Stenographer. Contd...P/7.

7 (Page...7) C.R.68/13. ANNEXURE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION : P.W.1... Sri Niranjan Borah, the complainant, P.W.2... Sri Anil Gayan WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENCE : NIL. DOCUMENTS EXHIBITTED. Ext.1... Seizure list. Ext.2... Zimmanama. Ext.3... Offence report. Ext.4... Forwarding of the complaint. Ext.5... Statements of the accused.