If the appellant wants to do business, she must
comply with the terms of the licence and since
she had not kept the accounts of the kerosene
which was allotted to her, the order passed by
the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.518 OF 1993
Smt. Sulochana Ramchandra
Mohite,
- Versus -
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
Citation; 2013 ALL M R (cri)1856
This
conviction
of
appeal
the
is
directed
appellant
by
against
the
the
learned
Special Judge under the Essential Commodities
Act (for short "EC Act") at Sangli for the
offence
punishable
under
Clause
6
of
the
Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order,
1970 r/w Section 3(2)(h)(ii) r/w Section 7(1)
fine
`300/-
of
imprisonment
for
or
one
in
month
(ii) of the EC Act and sentence of payment of
default
imposed
simple
upon
the
appellant on conclusion of trial of Criminal
Case No.8 of 1991 before him. The learned Judge
held that the prosecution failed to prove that
the appellant sold kerosene at excess rate or
black-market.
in
But
he
held
that
the
prosecution proved that the appellant had not
maintained stock register and sale register of
kerosene properly.
2.
Facts which are material for deciding
this appeal are as under:
The
appellant
was
a
hawker
for
kerosene who was supposed to sell kerosene to
patients or relatives of the patients in the
campus
of
Wanless
Hospital
at
Miraj.
The
appellant had quota of 200 litres of kerosene
per day. On 6-8-1991 the appellant received the
of
kerosene
from
the
supplier,
whose
quota
partner was examined as PW-6. Since there was a
complaint from the Superintendent of Wanless
Hospital
about
the
appellant
not
providing
kerosene at the prescribed rate to the patients
and their relations, the Tahsildar carried out
a raid and found, amongst other things, that
the appellant had not maintained the stock and
registers
of
kerosene.
sale
The
Tahsildar
cancelled the appellant's licence, but it was
by
the
restored
Commissioner.
orders
The
of
the
Tahsildar
Revenue
once
again
cancelled the licence of the appellant and that
order
too
was
set
aside
by
the
Revenue
Commissioner. Eventually, the Tahsildar filed a
complaint before the Special Judge under the EC
Act.
3. Charge of
Section 3 Section
framed at
r/w
offences
Exhibit-2.
7
punishable
of
Since
the
the
EC
under
Act
was
appellant
the
witnesses
prosecution
in
its
examined
in
all
six
which
pleaded not guilty, she was put on trial at
attempt
to
bring
home
the
guilt of the appellant. After considering the
evidence in the light of the defence raised,
as
afore-mentioned.
Aggrieved
ig
appellant,
the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the
4.
thereby, the appellant is before this Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for
the appellant and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both
I have gone through the record. The learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Tahsildar
was
annoyed
with
the
appellant
because his orders cancelling the licence of
the appellant were set aside by the Revenue
Commissioner in the past and therefore falsely
prosecuted the appellant. He submitted that the
Superintendent
of
Wanless
Hospital,
who
was
examined as PW-4, too, had an axe to grind and
therefore connived with the Tahsildar to have
the appellant falsely framed. The question here
is not whether the appellant was falsely framed
but whether the appellant could show that she
had
kept
the
The
register
Form
of
and
the
hawkers'
sale
licence
register.
stock
ig
prescribed under Clause 5(2) of the Maharashtra
Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966 itself
provides that the licensee shall maintain true
and proper accounts of all purchases and sales
of kerosene and issue cash memo to customers
purchasing kerosene. The licence also provides
for inspection of the stocks of kerosene and
accounts
of
kerosene
on
demand.
The
learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the
relevant
proper
registers
panchnama
were
and
not
seized
therefore
under
since
a
the
seizure itself was not proper, the charge of
the appellant of not having kept the stocks and
accounts
of
kerosene
must
fail.
Whether
the
registers were seized under a proper panchnama
to
show
that
in
the
registers
so
appellant
or not may not be relevant. It was for the
seized, she had maintained proper accounts of
the stock of kerosene which was allotted to
her. She could also have produced the other set
of registers which she had if the registers
seized by the Tahsildar were not the proper
registers. Rather than doing so, the appellant
was content at taking a stand that she was not
at all required to maintain such registers. In
cross-examination
examined as
made the
to
of
PW-3,
a
the
Tahsildar,
Tahsildar
that
was
suggestion
specific
who was
it
was
not
the
responsibility of the hawker to maintain stock
register
and
distribution
register.
The
Tahsildar denied this suggestion. Thus it is
clear that the appellant had not maintained the
stock register and the distribution register
because
she
considered
responsibility.
appellant
The
submitted
that
learned
that
it
was not her
counsel for the
the
appellant
is
and
therefore
her
failure
to
illiterate
maintain the registers on a day-to-day basis
may be condoned. He also submitted that the
appellant had
in
assistant which
fact
was
sought
not
help
granted
of
by
an
the
Tahsildar. These grounds cannot be entertained.
If the appellant wants to do business, she must
comply with the terms of the licence and since
she had not kept the accounts of the kerosene
which was allotted to her, the order passed by
the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted. The
learned
trial
Judge
has
not
imposed
any
excessive fine or a harsh sentence upon the
appellant
and,
therefore,
the
sentence
of
payment of fine of `300/-, which is nominal,
also
does
not
call
for
an
interference.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.C. CHAVAN, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment