Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs State Of U.T on 25 March, 2010
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Criminal Appeal No.138-SB of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(i) Criminal Appeal No.138-SB of 2000
Date of Decision 25.03.2010
Pardeep Kumar
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of U.T., Chandigarh
...... Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No.139-SB of 2000
Chhote Lal
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of U.T., Chandigarh
...... Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate,
for the appellant Pardeep Kumar.
Ms.Ekta Thakur, Advocate,
for Mr.A.S.Chahal, Advocate,
for appellant Chhote Lal.
Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Standing Counsel,
for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh.
*****
A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):
This judgment of mine shall dispose of the aforesaid two connected appeal Nos.138 & 139-SB of 2000, preferred by Pardeep Kumar and Chhote Lal appellants-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') respectively, against the judgment dated 01.02.2000, passed by Special Judge, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Criminal Appeal No.138-SB of 2000 2
The factual matrix of the case is that on 10.09.1997, P.K.Dhawan, Inspector, Food & Supplies Department, Union Territory, Chandigarh, informed vide application Ex.PH to the Station House Officer of Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh that when he as well as Sushil Kumar Gupta and Hari Ram Kalia, Inspectors, Food & Supplies, under the supervision of Shri Amar Nath, A.F.S.O., U.T., Chandigarh, were on routine checking then they found that a Rehriwala was delivering one gas refill to a person namely Pardeep Kumar of M/s K.K.Chicken, Booth No.187, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. On inquiry, accused Pardeep Kumar disclosed that he had received the said domestic cylinder from accused Chhote Lal, for a sum of Rs.200/-. The said gas cylinder was found in the verandah of house of Pardeep Kumar. The case was registered against the accused for violation of the provisions of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993 issued under Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and investigated. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented.
The accused were charged for the aforesaid offence to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
On appreciation of evidence, the trial ended in conviction. Arguments heard, record perused. Admittedly, the price of the gas refill prevalent at that time was Rs.150.70 p. There is sufficient evidence that Chhote Lal had delivered the gas refill to Pardeep Kumar, which was meant for domestic purpose. But in order to complete the violation of the order punishable under essential Commodities Act, the prosecution was to show if it was actually sold for Rs.200/-. No such receipt bearing the amount of Rs.200/- has been brought on record. Criminal Appeal No.138-SB of 2000 3 Pardeep Kumar has also not admitted anywhere if he had purchased the same for Rs.200/-. In the absence of any evidence in this regard that the gas refill was sold by Chhote Lal to Pardeep Kumar at the excess price than the fixed price, they could not be convicted. Similarly, the cylinder is stated to have been recovered from the verandah of Pardeep Kumar. No evidence has been led by the prosecution in order to prove if the cylinder was used by Pardeep Kumar for any commercial purpose. Mere recovery of a gas cylinder meant for domestic purposes from the commercial premises without any further act indicating use of the same for commercial purpose, is hardly sufficient to make out an offence that the same was not used by the person for the same purpose for which it was purchased.
The trial Court appears to have fallen in error while not mentioning in the charge as to what provisions of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1993 issued under Essential Commodities Act, 1995 have been violated and the evidence appears to have been misread and mis-appreciated by the trial Court while convicting the accused for the offence, therefore, the interference at my end has become inevitable.
Resultantly, both the appeals are allowed; impugned order is set aside and both the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Fine, if deposited by them, be refunded.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge 25.03.2010 mamta-II