Jamnadas vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 8521 MP

                                                                            1                                  CRA-885-1998
                                                 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                           CRA No. 885 of 1998
                                                                  (JAMNADAS Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)


                                      Jabalpur, Dated : 09-12-2021
                                             Shri S.K.Gangrade, counsel for the appellant.

                                             Shri Ajay Tramrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

Heard.

This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 23/03/1998 passed by Special Judge, Hoshangabad in Special Case No.113/1996, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant under

Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and has been sentenced to suffer three months RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.

The judgement passed by the trial Court is assailed by the appellant mainly on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the said offence, alleging that he was found in illegal possession of seven litres Blue Kerosene Oil and as such, he has violated the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, because Blue Kerosene Oil cannot be used for commercial purpose.

As per the prosecution story, the appellant was running a tea stall in the name and style "Gurukrapa" at Gwaltoli, Hoshangabad and kerosene oil which was found in his possession was being used for preparing tea and also for preparing the other food

items, which was not permissible, because the said kerosene oil was taken by the present appellant under public distribution system and as such the same should not have been used for commercial purpose.

Counsel for the appellant has urged that seizure witnesses have been declared hostile as they have not supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that even from the statement of Investigating Officer namely Shankarlal Vyas (PW-3) it is not clear as to why the appellant has been convicted for the alleged offence. He submits that there was no specific finding and report from the expert that the kerosene oil seized from the shop of the appellant was Blue Kerosene Oil and only on assumption it cannot be said that the same was being used for commercial purpose. He has also submitted that no witness adduced by the prosecution indicating that the seized kerosene oil had been purchased by the appellant from a fair price shop involved in the food distribution system and authorized by the Signature Not Verified SAN Government to sell the kerosene oil to its card holder customers.

Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2021.12.10 11:10:21 IST
                                                                             2                                   CRA-885-1998

Shri Gangrade further submits that the sole conviction is based only on presumption that the appellant has got the kerosene oil from fair price shop which was being used by him for commercial purpose and as such he was charged for violating the provisions of Essential Commodities Act.

On the other hand, panel Lawyer has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and supported the findings given by the trial court saying

that on the basis of the statement of Investigating Officer, it is clear that the charge levelled against appellant and reasoning given by the trial court is well founded and only on the basis of the fact that seizure witnesses have been declared hostile and there is no specific report from any of the expert saying that the seized kerosene oil was Blue Kerosene Oil, the judgement passed by the trial court cannot be set aside.

Considering the rival contentions of counsel for parties and perusal of record, I am of the opinion that the findings given by the Court below in respect of illegality alleged against the present appellant that he was found in possession of Blue Kerosene Oil and said kerosene oil was being used for commercial purpose and the same was brought by the appellant from fair price shop, are not proper.

In the absence of any specific evidence collected and produced during the trial presuming that the kerosene oil seized from the possession of the appellant was Blue kerosene oil and was purchased from the fair price shop, the finding of the trial can be said to be based upon unfounded reasoning and therefore, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is a settled principle of law that prosecution is under obligation to prove the guilt of an accused beyond the reasonable doubts and conviction cannot be based upon the suspicion especially on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

In view of aforesaid, the finding given by the Court below cannot be maintained. I have also perused the statement of Investigating Officer. The said statement does not give strength to the findings of the trial court.

In such a situation, in my opinion, conviction of the present appellant is not sustainable and therefore, impugned judgment dated 23/03/1998 passed by Special Judge Hoshangabad, in Special Case No.113/1996 is not sustainable, therefore the same is set aside and the appellant is discharged from the charge levelled against him.

Appeal is accordingly allowed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) Signature Not Verified SAN JUDGE

Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2021.12.10 11:10:21 IST 3 CRA-885-1998 sushma

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2021.12.10 11:10:21 IST