Bangalore District Court
State By Peenya P.S vs & 2 Are Acquitted on 19 February, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 19th day of February 2021.
Present: SRI.SHANKARAPPA B.MALASHETTI
B.com., LL.B.(Spl)
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO. 22050-2010
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 22050/2010
2. The date of commission 22.04.2010
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Peenya P.S.
4. Name of the accused 1. Narayanappa, S/o.Anjanappa,
40 years, R/at : Vijayalakshmi
Layout, Bagalagunte,
Bengaluru - 73.
2. Shakar, S/o.Kashinath, 25
years, R/at: C/o.Nagamma
House, Acharya College Road,
Ganapathinagar,
Soladevanahalli, Bengaluru.
5. The offence complained of U/secs.3, 4, and 5 of Liquified
or proved Petroleum Gas Supply & Control
Order, 2000 and Section -6(A),7
of Essential Commodities Act,
1955 and Sec. 285 of IPC.
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
2
8. Accused represented by: Sri.KS Advocate for A-1.
Sri. R.R. Advocate for A-2.
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 255(1) Cr.PC
Accused-1 & 2 are acquitted.
10. Date of such order 19/02/2021
For the following:-
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Peenya Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused-1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/secs.3, 4, and 5 of Liquified Petroleum Gas Supply & Control Order, 2000 and Section -6(A),7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sec. 285 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 22.04.2010 at Vijayalakshmi Layout in a Shed, situated at Bagalagunte, within the jurisdiction of Peenya Police Station, accused persons without any authority were tried to refill the LPG from domestic cylidners to commercial cylinders in order to make unlawful gain without taking any precautionary measures and acted negligently without any licence or permit as required under the Central Government Order and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3.Accused-1 & 2 are on bail. The copy of the charge sheet and other material documents have been supplied to the accused as required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.
4.Plea of accused-1 and 2 are recorded for the offences punishable U/secs.3, 4, and 5 of Liquified Petroleum Gas Supply & Control Order, 2000 and Section -6(A),7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sec. 3 285 of IPC and read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5.In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined only 3 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P3. On closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the statement of the accused u/sec.313 Cr.PC came to be recorded. In defense, the accused have placed no evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
7. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that on
22.04.2010 at Vijayalakshmi Layout
in a Shed, situated at Bagalagunte,
within the jurisdiction of Peenya
Police Station, accused persons
without any authority were tried to
refill the LPG from domestic cylidners
to commercial cylinders in order to
make unlawful gain without taking any
precautionary measures and acted
negligently without any licence or
permit as required under the Central
Government Order and thereby
accused has committed the offences
punishable U/secs.3, 4, and 5 of
Liquified Petroleum Gas Supply &
Control Order, 2000 and Section
4
-6(A),7 of Essential Commodities Act,
1955 and Sec. 285 of IPC.?
2) What order?
8. My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 In the Negative.
Point No.2 As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- It is the allegation of the prosecution that, the accused persons without any authority were tried to refill the LPG from domestic cylidners to commercial cylinders in order to make unlawful gain without taking any precautionary measures and acted negligently in respect of fire and combustable matter thereby they have violated the provisions of LPG Act, 2000, Essential Commodites Act and Section - 285 of IPC.
10.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the Pw.1, who is the complainant and PW.2 and 3 as mahazar witnesses. PW.1 deposed that, on 22.04.2010 he received a credible information then he gone to a shed, which is situated at Vijayalakshmi Layout and found 32 commercial cylidners, weighing machine and he also found the accused -2. He inquired with the accused - 2 about the license, but the accused -2 has not produced any license. So, he thought that the accused used to refill the gas unauthorizedly. During the said period, no one was accompanied with the complainant. Therefore, he drawn a mahazar and obtained signatures of the pancha witnesses, then he filed a complaint. He identified the mahazar and complaint, therefore they 5 are respectively marked as Ex.P1 and 2 and signatures P1(a) and 2(a). He also identified the photographs in which it shows the cylidners, the said photograph is marked as Ex.P3. Later, he handedover the cylidners to the KSFC. In the cross-examination he admitted that, he has not issued any notices to the pancha witnesses. He has not enquired about the ownership of the disputed shed. He also admitted that, the said accused was not found in the photograph.
11.CW.3 is examined as PW.2. He is alleged to be the mahazar witness. In the chief-examination he depsod that, about six years back at about 3.30 p.m. the police called him and obtained his LTM on Ex.P1 at that time he found 3 big cylidners and also some small cylidners and regulator. He identified Ex.P1 and his LTM, but he said he has not saw the accused on the said date. The police has also not shown him any of the accused. He was considered as partly hostile. In the cross- examination by the learned Sr.APP, he pleads ignorance about the refilling of gas by the accused from big cylidners to small cylidners. He further reiterated that, he has not found the accused on the alleged place of incident. He did not know about the seizure of refilling machines and weighing machines by the police at the time of mahazar.
12.CW.5 is examined as PW.3. He is also alleged to be another mahazar witness. In the chief-examination he deposed about the seizure of 8 big cylidners and 3 small cylidners, which were found in Ex.P3. He also identified his signature in Ex.P1, so his signature is marked as Ex.P 1(b). He is also considered as partly hostile. In the cross-examination by the learned Sr.APP, he denied the suggestion regarding seizure of commercial cylidners , domestic cylidners , regulators , refilling maching and weighing machine at the time of seizure. He also said he did not saw the accused in the place of incident. In the cross-examination by the accused counsel he 6 deposed that, he did not know howmany cylidners have been seized by the police.
13.In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution must have to prove about the presence of accused in the alleged place of incident,ownership of the disputed shed . Whether the accused were owners or tenants of the said shed is also not explained and proved. It is also allegation that the accused no.2 was acted as per the direction of the accused -1, but there is no whisper how the accused - 1 releated to the case and no materials have been produced by the prosecution.
14.The PW.1, who is the complainant first he stated that he alone went to the place of incident and observed about the cylidners, refilling machines, scale then he drawn the mahazar and very strangely he said he obtained the signatures of Cws.3 to 5. When he alone went to the spot, how the pancha witnesses came to the spot either voluntarily or they are brought by whom is also not explained. Further, PW.1 himself has admitted that he has not issued notice to the pancha witnesses. So, the presence of the pancha witnesses in the place of incident is also doubtful. The prosecution has also failed to prove from where the disputed cylidners were brought to the place of incident and who was the owner of the said cylidners is also not explained. It was also not the case of the prosecution that there was any danger or incident of fire and caused any untoward incident by the accused.
15.The witness summons have been issued to the investigating officer and other witnesses several times, but the prosecution has failed to secure the other witnesses. Therefore, the evidence of other witnesses have been dropped. The non-examination of investigating officer is fatal to prosecution case.
7
16.On going through the oral and documentary evidence , there are somany contradictions , omissions and improvements. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove about the seizure of the material objects. Whenever doubt arises in prosecution case, the benefit of doubt will goes in favour of the accused. Accordingly, my answer to the above point is in the negative.
17. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed herein above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused-1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/secs.3, 4, and 5 of Liquified Petroleum Gas Supply & Control Order, 2000 and Section -6(A),7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sec. 285 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 19 th day of February 2021.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:
1. G.K. Venkatesh
2. Rajanna 8
3. Shivanna.B.N.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Mahazar
2. Complaint
3. Photo.
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
-NIL -
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -NIL -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
9 Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused-1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/secs.3, 4, and 5 of Liquified Petroleum Gas Supply & Control Order, 2000 and Section -6(A),7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sec. 285 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
10 Section -6(A),7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sec. 285 of IPC.
Section -6(A),7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sec. 285 of IPC.