Delhi District Court
State vs Satender Kumar on 31 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Shriya Agrawal
State Vs. Satender Kumar Jain.
FIR No. 224/2011
Police Station: Badarpur
Under Section: 7/10/55 of Essential Commodities Act.
Date of institution : 15.11.2014
Date of reserving : 25.01.2024
Date of pronouncement : 31.01.2024
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 86841/2016
b) Date of commission of : 02.08.2011 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Inspector Shyam Bir Singh
d) Name, parentage and : Satender Kumar Jain S/o Late address of the accused Sh. Jayanti Prashad Jain R/o H.No. 10 A, G.No. 6B, Molarband Extension, Badarpur, Delhi 110 044.
e) Offence complained of : Section 7/10/55 of Essential Commodities Act.
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty.
g) Final order : Accused stands convicted for the
offence punishable under Section
7/10/55 Essential Commodities Act
State Vs. Satender
FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 1 of 22
h) Date of final order : 31.1.2024
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE
CASE
1. The Accused, Satender Kumar Jain (hereinafter, "the Accused") was sent up for trial on allegations primarily to the effect that on 02.08.2011 at around 6.55 pm, at his shop and godown bearing H. No. 9, Gali no. 21, Molarband Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi, he was found in possession of 57 domestic cylinders of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (for short 'LPG'), without any valid permit or license. He was also found filling LPG in small cylinders from domestic LPG cylinders in violation of provisions of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Distribution) Control Order, 2000.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The first intimation was received in the police station through a complaint dated 02.08.2011 (Ex.PW1/E) of Inspector Shyambir. He along with three Inspectors of the Enforcement Branch viz. Mukesh Solanki, Avinash Kumar and Bharat Kumar had reached at H. No. 9, Gali no. 21, Molarband, where they found the accused Satender Kumar Jain, who introduced himself as the proprietor of the firm. The team found 10 Domestic LPG cylinders at the shop and 47 cylinders in the godown. The cylinders were seized from the spot. The team also seized the State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 2 of 22 adopter used for transfer of the LGP from the Domestic LPG cylinder to small cylinder, along with pipe and one small cylinder of a capacity 04 kg. The Accused failed to produce any document in support of his possession of the Cylinders and qua the work of filling of small cylinders from Domestic LPG cylinders and its subsequent sale to general public, thereby violating the provisions of Liquefied Petroleum Gass (Regulation of Distribution) Control Order 2000, and committing the offence punishable under Section 7/10/55 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. Upon conclusion of investigation, the final report /the chargesheet was filed on 15.11.2014, on which cognizance was taken and the accused was summoned. After his presence had been secured, due compliance was made by supply of copies in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.PC"). Vide Order dated 29.04.2015 charge was framed against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7/10/55 of Essential Commodities Act, to which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
4. The prosecution led evidence in support of its case examining a total of 7 witnesses.
State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 3 of 22
5. PW1, Mr. Shyambir Singh, Superintendent, Land & Estate Branch, Directorate of Education deposed in chief that in the year 2011 he was posted as Inspector in Enforcement Branch, Food and Supply Department. On 02.08.2011 he had received one deployment slip/order concerning a raid to be conducted at Molarband Extension from the Senior Officers. Thereafter, he along with three other Inspectors viz. Mukesh Solanki, Bharat Kumar and Avinash Kumar visited the shop of accused i.e. H.No. 9, Gali no. 21, Molarband Extension, where they met the accused who was selling the domestic cylinders to his customers. They showed the deployment slip and introduced themselves to the accused, also inquiring about his identity. They inspected the premises in presence of accused and found a total of 10 domestic cylinders. When they asked the Accused as to whether he was having any premises where other domestic cylinders were kept by him, the Accused took them to the adjacent shop, which was closed. The shutter of the said premises was opened and upon inspection of the shop in presence of Accused, 47 domestic cylinders (LPG) were found lying there. Apart from this, they also found one small cylinder and one instrument (adopter), which was used for filling gas in small cylinder from the domestic cylinder retrieved from the shop/house. Thereafter, they inquired from the Accused as to whether he was having any document regarding possession of the case property for filling gas in small cylinder to which no satisfactory answer was given.
State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 4 of 22 They prepared the entry-cum-search-cum-counting-cum- weighment-cum-seizure memo of the case property. Complete details of the seizure were recorded in the seizure memo. One employee/ representative of M/s Oorja Gas Agency Mr. Sher Singh had reached the spot and the case property was handed over to him on Superdari vide Memo (Ex.PW1/B). The statement of the Accused was recorded (Ex.PW1/C) and the documents were handed over to the concerned Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. The deponent had made a formal complaint to the In- charge, Anti Hoarding Cell (Ex.PW1/E) identifying his signatures at point A.
6. In the further examination in chief on 01.08.2017, the Superdar had produced the seized LPG domestic gas cylinders, one small 4 kg LPG gas cylinder (without any details and descriptions not being legible) and one adopter. Out of the 57 LPG domestic gas cylinders, a total of 13 domestic gas cylinders matched in particulars with those mentioned in the Seizure Memo. The Accused was correctly identified by the deponent. Witness was cross examined and discharged.
7. The next witness to be examined was PW2/Mr. Avinash Kumar, Superintendent, Lt. Governor Secretariat, New Delhi, who in his deposition in chief stated that on 02.08.2011, he was posted as Inspector in Enforcement Branch, Food & Supply Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, K-Block, Vikas State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 5 of 22 Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi. On the said date, he along with Inspector Shyambir Singh, Inspector Bharat Kumar, Inspector Mukesh Solanki (all from Enforcement Department) were deployed to inspect shop no. 9, Gali no. 21, Molarband Extension. At about 6.55 pm they reached there and found the accused was refilling the small cylinder with the Domestic LPG cylinder through an adopter. The Accused upon enquiry had informed the team that he did not possess any kind of license for refilling the cylinder. Initially 10 domestic cylinders were recovered along with 4 kg small cylinder, whereafter 47 domestic cylinders more were recovered from the go-down of the Accused. He further stated on the same lines as PW1 with respect to the raid. As during examination of the PW4, which was recorded prior to cross examination of PW2, the Accused had submitted through counsel that he did not dispute the identity of the case property. Similar observation was noted in the further examination in chief of PW2, which was deferred for 31.10.2018. The Witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and was discharged.
8. Witness PW3 Mr. Mukesh Solanki, Assistant VAT Officer Superintendent, Lt. Governor, Secretariat, New Delhi deposed on 15.11.2017, who in his examination in chief stated that on the relevant date i.e. 02.08.2011, he was posted as Inspector in Enforcement Branch, Food & Supply Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, K-Block, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi, State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 6 of 22 when he along with Inspector Shyambir Singh, Inspector Bharat Kumar, Inspector Avinash (all from Enforcement Department) were deployed to inspect Shop no. 9, Gali no. 21, Molarband Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi. They reached the spot at about 6.55 pm and found the Accused refilling the small cylinders from the Domestic LPG cylinders through an adopter. He deposed on the similar lines in chief as PW1 and PW2, qua the raid conducted. He was also cross examined and discharged.
9. The fourth witness to depose was PW-4 Mr. Bharat Kumar, Section Officer, Education Department, GNCT Delhi who was posted as Inspector Enforcement Branch in Food & Supply, GNCT Delhi on 02.08.2011 and at about 5.00 pm he was given the Deployment Order (Ex.PW4/A), pursuant to which he along with Mr. Mukesh Solanki, Sh. Avinash Kumar, Sh. Shyam Veer Singh, the Inspectors, reached Gali no. 21, Molarband, New Delhi where they met the accused who was running his business of refilling cylinder from the Domestic LPG cylinders. He also deposed on the lines as of the other witnesses. He correctly identified the Accused present in Court. Upon permission granted to Ld. APP for the State, he stated that he had recorded statement of Accused (Ex.PW1/C) and could identify the case property if shown. Identity of case property, however, was not disputed by the Accused. Witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and discharged.
State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 7 of 22
10. The next witness to depose was PW5 Inspector Suman Kumar who stated that on 02.08.2011 he was posted as Sub Inspector in the Anti Hoarding Cell, Food & Supply Department, when he was called by the Complainant Inspector Shyam Vir Singh at Gali no. 21, Molarband Extension, New Delhi. He reached there along-with ASI Rajender and Ct. P. Suresh where the complainant handed over the complaint (Ex.PW1/E) to him along with other documents viz. deployment slip (Ex.PW4/A), entry-cum-search-cum-counting-cum-weighment-cum-seizure - memo (Ex.PW1/A), statement of accused (Ex.PW1/C), superdarinama of the cylinders (Ex.P-1/B) which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/D) bearing his signature at point B. The deponent thereafter stated that he prepared the rukka on the complaint Ex.PW1/E i.e. Ex.PW5/A which was sent through Ct. P. Suresh for registration of FIR. At the instance of complainant, he prepared the site plan (Ex.PW5/B) and preliminary inquiry from the accused. The complainant also handed over the statement of landlord of house (Ex.PW5/C) at the spot. He also recorded statement of witnesses and then moved an application under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act before Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) for disposing of the property (Ex.PW5/D) bearing his signature at point A. He had correctly identified the accused and was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and discharged.
State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 8 of 22
11. The two other witnesses viz. Inspector B.D. Meena (PW-6) and ASI Suresh Kumar (PW7) additionally deposed for the prosecution. Witnesses were cross examined and discharged.
12. By his statement under Section 294 read with Sections 313/281 of CrPC, recorded on 31.10.2018 and 19.07.2023, the Accused admitted the correctness of some of the documents of the Prosecution, upon which they were exhibited and assigned labels viz. FIR (Ex. A1) and Superdari Memo issued in favour of M/s Oorja Gas Agency, Bharat Gas and Sh. Sher Singh (Ex.PW1/B).
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
13. After the Prosecution had rested its case, the Accused was confronted with the incriminating evidence and his statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded. In the said statement, the Accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him, stating that he was pressurized by the police officials and that he used to run a shop of repairing gas chulha and selling other items of gas chulha etc. He claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. Arguments of the Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State and of the Ld. Counsel for the Accused were heard at length and with State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 9 of 22 their assistance the record has been carefully perused. I have considered the rival submissions carefully.
APPRAISAL & OBSERVATIONS
15. At the threshold the statutory ingredients of the certain relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 must be borne in mind. Section 2A of the Act provides for the definition of an 'Essential Commodity' referring the reader to the 'Schedule' annexed to the Statute to identify the commodities, classified as 'Essential' for the law to apply. Commodities, other than those specified in the Schedule may also be additionally declared as 'Essential Commodities' where the Central Government in consultation with the State Government through a publication in the gazette specifically notifies them to be so. Taking judicial notice of The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993, and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order of 2000, it is a settled position and in the public domain that an LPG Cylinder falls in the category of an 'Essential Commodity', the possession, supply, manufacture and sale of which is regulated by the aforesaid Regulations. Sections 3, relates to the Power of the Government to Control Production, Supply and Distribution of the Essential Commodities. The provision has been reproduced hereunder as a ready reckoner:
State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 10 of 22 Section 3 : Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities (1) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, or for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations, it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), an order made thereunder may provide―
(a) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the production or manufacture of any essential commodity;
(b) for bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land, whether appurtenant to a building or not, for the growing thereon of food-
crops generally or of specified food-crops, and for otherwise maintaining or increasing the cultivation of food-crops generally, or of specified food-crops.
(c) for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold;
(d) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of, any essential commodity;
(e) for prohibiting the withholding from sale of any essential commodity ordinarily kept for sale;
(f) for requiring any person holding in stock, or engaged in the production, or in the business of buying or selling, of any essential commodity,― (a) to sell the whole or a specified part of the quantity held in stock or produced or received by him or, (b) in the case of any such commodity which is likely to be produced or received by him, to State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 11 of 22 sell the whole or a specified part of such commodity when produced or received by him, to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to a Corporation owned or controlled by such Government or to such other person or class of persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in the order. Explanation 1.―An order made under this clause in relation to foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, may, having regard to the estimated production, in the concerned area, of such foodgrains, edible oilseeds and edible oils, fix the quantity to be sold by the producers in such area and may also fix, or provide for the fixation of, such quantity on a graded basis, having regard to the aggregate of the area held by, or under the cultivation of, the producers. Explanation 2.―For the purpose of this clause, "production" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions includes manufacture of edible oils and sugar;
(g) for regulating or prohibiting any class of commercial or financial transactions relating to foodstuffs which, in the opinion of the authority making the order, are, or, if unregulated, are likely to be, detrimental to the public interest;
(h) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters;
(i) for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of or trade and commerce in, any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the order;
(ii) for the grant or issue of licences, permits or other documents, the charging of fees therefore, the deposit of such sum, if any, as may be specified in the order as security for the due performance of the conditions of any such licence, permit or other document, the State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 12 of 22 forfeiture of the sum so deposited or any part thereof for contravention of any such conditions, and the adjudication of such forfeiture by such authority as may be specified in the order;
(j) for any incidental and supplementary matters, including, in particular, the entry, search or examination of premises, aircraft, vessels, vehicles or other conveyances and animals, and the seizure by a person authorised to make such entry, search or examination
(i) of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been, is being, or is about to be committed and any packages, coverings or receptacles in which such articles are found;
(ii) of any aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or animal used in carrying such articles, if such person has reason to believe that such aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or animal is liable to be forfeited under the provisions of this Act;
(iii) of any books of accounts and documents which in the opinion of such person, may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act and the person from whose custody such books of accounts or documents are seized shall be entitled to make copies thereof or to take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer having the custody of such books of accounts or documents.
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Under Section 5 of the Act, there can be a delegation of these Powers to make Orders/ Notifications concerning the above to any other specific Officer/ Authority subordinate to it as well. Section 7 of the Act stipulates the penalties for contravention of any Order issued under Section 3 of the Act.
State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 13 of 22
17. Rule 3 of the Order of 2000 (issued by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas) dated 26.4.2000, in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, relied upon by the IO/ Prosecution, as annexed with the Chargesheet, stipulates a restriction on unauthorised possession, supply and consumption of liquefied petroleum gas, restricting possession or use of the LPG filled in cylinder in bulk, unless received in supply from a Government Oil Company. It mandates registration of a consumer with the distributor of a Government Oil Company and provides for restricted supply of LPG for domestic users. Rule 3 (3) provides that no distributor shall supply the LPG in cylinder to any person, unless he is registered or holds a valid authorisation from the Government Oil Company. Rule 4 mandates that for any person to be legally entitled to fill cylinders with LPG or transfer the same from one cylinder to another, the person has to have an authorisation from the Chief Controller of Explosives. Rule 6 casts a prohibition against a person other than a Government Oil Company, a parallel marketeer or a distributor to be engaged in business of sale LPG to the consumer.
18. Rule 13 proves for the Power of Entry, Search and Seizure and permits any Officer of Central or State Government not below the rank of Inspector, duly authorised to enter and search any place and seize stocks of LPG along with container and/ or equipments such as cylinders, gas cylinder valves, pressure State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 14 of 22 regulators and seals in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of the Order has been done or is being done.
19. The case of the Prosecution is that the Accused in violation of the Act and the Order as aforesaid, was found at his shop and godown bearing House No. 9, Gali No. 21, Molarband Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi, on 2.8.2011, at around 6:55 PM, in possession of 57 domestic LPG cylinders, without any permit or licence and was found having indulged in the work of filling LPG in small cylinders from the Domestic LPG cylinder in violation of the Act of 1955 and Order of 2000 issued in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act of 1955.
20. The case has been registered on the complaint of Inspector Shyamvir Singh (Ex PW1/E) on the basis of which Inspector Suman Kumar (examined as PW5) a Sub-Inspector in the Anti Hoarding Cell, Food and Supply Department, had prepared the rukka (Ex PW5/A), which was sent through Ct. P. Suresh for registration of the FIR. As per the deposition of PW1/ the complainant, a team comprising of he himself, Mukesh Solanki (Inspector), Bharat Kumar (Inspector) and Avinash Kumar (Inspector), was readied for the raid and authorised for the same under a Deployment Slip/ Order dated 2.8.2011, proved as Ex PW4/A. The said Deployment Order issued under the signatures of the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Supply Department, Government of NCT of Delhi was proved by PW4, Mr. Bharat State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 15 of 22 Kumar, Section Officer, Education Department (one of the Inspectors of the team deployed for the raid).
21. Witnesses viz. PW1 (Shyamvir Singh, Inspector), PW2 (Avinash Kumar, Inspector), PW3 (Mukesh Solanki, Inspector) and PW4 (Bharat Kumar, Inspector), have deposed on similar lines, in sync, as to the narration of events as transpired on the relevant date, in the conduct of the raid at the shop and go-down of the Accused, whereunder the recoveries were statedly made. It is consistently established from the aforesaid testimonies that the team had reached the shop/ godown of the Accused, where he was found. Although PW1 makes a mention of he having been spotted selling the cylinders, PW2 and PW3 have stated that the Accused was found refilling domestic cylinders. PW4 makes a mention of him running his business of cylinders from the shop. It is repeatedly buttressed however, that a total recovery of 57 cylinders was effected from the Accused, apart from one adopter (seemingly kept for use for refilling purpose) and one other small cylinder and that the Accused acknowledged upon being asked to produce a licence, that he had none. The entry-cum-search-cum- counting-cum-weighment-cum-seizure memo was duly proved as Ex PW1/A, bearing signatures of Inspectors Bharat Kumar, Shyambir Singh and Avinash, duly identified. The said memo (Ex PW1/A), affirms/ proves the seizure of a total of 57 cylinders (47 from the godown and 10 from the shop), apart from one adopter used for transfer of Domestic LPG to small cylinders State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 16 of 22 with pipe and one small cylinder of capacity 4 kgs, corroborating the versions of the deponents PW1-4 (Inspectors, as part of the team, that conducted the raid). The memo further records that the seized items were handed over on superdari to one Mr. Sher Singh/ representative of one M/s Oorja Gas Agency, who had introduced himself as the godown keeper of the said gas agency, under assurance of keeping them in safe custody till disposal of the case/ proceedings.
22. Although during evidence of PW1, only 13 out of 57 cylinders matched in identity, it is a matter of record that the Accused has not disputed the identity of the case properties. Further as the Superdar was released the total 57 cylinders as per the seizure memo, therefore, the Accused cannot subsequently benefit out the mismatch qua some later produced commodities by the Superdar, who alone has to explain it. However, the primary thrust of argument in his defence is that such a raid never took place and no such commodities were seized from his shop/ godown as claimed. In his plea taken in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, the Accused has claimed innocence, stating that he used to run a shop of repairing gas chulhas and selling other items of gas chulha and that he has been falsely implicated in this case, dismissing the testimonies of the witnesses having deposed against him, as essentially being official witnesses.
State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 17 of 22
23. During the cross examination of the witnesses examined by the Prosecution and by way of final arguments, the Ld. Defence Counsel has sought to underscore certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the said official witnesses, with respect to the raid, to question and dislodge the veracity of their assertions. It has been highlighted that while witness PW1 talks of an additional recovery of a small cylinder weighing only one kg from the possession of the Accused, witnesses PW2 and PW3 make a mention of a small cylinder weighing 4 kgs as the one recovered. Similarly, while PW1 and PW 2 refer to motorcycle as being the mode of transport used by the team to reach the spot of the raid, witness PW3 in his cross examination has made a mention of a government gypsy having been used by them instead. It is also in the same spirit highlighted that many of the witnesses did not even remember the shop number of the property they visited, or pleaded ignorance of certain pertinent/ material facts, claiming they did not remember, further rendering the version of the Prosecution doubtful/ lacking in creditworthiness.
24. It is a matter of record that the raid had taken place in the year 2011, while the witnesses have deposed after about 6 years thereafter in the trial. It is trite law as held in Gurunath Donkappa Keri v State of Karnataka [ (2009) 13 SCC 34] that where the Prosecution witnesses are able to corroborate facts broadly on all essential ingredients constituting an offence, minor State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 18 of 22 inconsistencies, (which are probably due to fading memory with passage of time), do not affect the case of the Prosecution as much as to discard it as not worthy of belief. It has been observed that "once genesis of occurrence was proved, contradictions which were minor in nature would not be sufficient to dispel entire prosecution case". In the instant case, the inconsistencies in the versions of the witnesses as to what mode of transport was used and their inability to give the registration numbers thereof or disclose the exact shop number of the place raided, after a lapse of about 6 years, may be well explained as effect of eroding memories. Considering the witnesses have asserted the claims qua the sequence of events as transpired on the day of the raid, with recovery of cylinders (in huge numbers), with adopter et al, supported by preparation of the Deployment Order and the detailed Seizure-cum-Weighment memo, nothing turns on the aforesaid argument, to take away from the force of Prosecution's case against the Accused.
25. It is also an argument of the Defence that no public persons were made to join the raid as independent witnesses and that it were only the Inspectors from the Department that orchestrated the ruse of some raid and prepared the documents on their own and falsely implicated the Accused. It is settled law as held in Pramod Kumar v State (Government of NCT of Delhi ) [ (2013) 6 SCC 588] that where the testimonies of police officials (parallelly here Inspectors/ Government Officials) are otherwise State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 19 of 22 found reliable and trustworthy, there is no requirement in law as a mandate for public witnesses to be made to join, considering the general reluctance of members of public to participate in formal proceedings of such kind as the raid conducted here, which invariably lead to court proceedings/ trials and that such depositions can be relied upon. Even otherwise, the Inspectors who conducted the raid, can by no stretch of imagination be considered as having any personal axe to grind against the Accused, nor has such a motive been attributed by the Accused to them.
26. The third major argument by the Accused is to question the very Deployment Slip/ Order, highlighting that the Ex PW4/A does not clearly indicate the exact address of the shop/godown of the Accused, as the targeted place for the conduct of raid, nor does it bear the signatures of the Inspectors deployed. This argument also does not merit consideration and seems specious, considering the deployment slip makes a mention of "Illegal godown of Domestic LPG Cylinder, Molarband Extn., Badarpur, Delhi" as the 'Premises to be visited' giving sufficient indication of the area where the raid was conducted. There is no questioning to the Prosecution witnesses, if this was the only place they raided on the relevant date. The witness PW1 on the other hand has also explained, though in the context of logging departure entries, that when they are directed to visit more than one place, they do not make the departure entries at times. This version State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 20 of 22 coupled with the endorsements on Ex PW 4/A, makes it appear to be a generic Deployment Order for the said area, with probability of raids at multiple places. Further, the absence of signatures of the Inspectors thereon does not render the document doubtful, considering it bears the signatures of the issuing authority and the names of the persons deployed, who are simply directed for the conduct of the exercise, there being no mandate of taking their consent for the same, for them to sign the record.
27. In the given facts and circumstances, the Accused was found in possession of as many as 57 cylinders in a commercial set up (admittedly his shop with godown), that too without a licence. The Accused has nowhere in the trial, by way of any cross examination or by any evidence in defence led, suggested that he had the necessary licence to possess cylinders in such numbers or to carry out the business of refilling and presumably further supply/ sale of LPG. The law on Essential Commodities Act was enacted to ensure regulations by force of law are in place, as can control and place a check on unauthorised hoarding/ sale/ supply/ manufacture/ dealing in such commodities, to the prejudice of interests of the society/ general public, who depend on State Authorities for regulated and equitable supply of these necessities at controlled rates for benefit of all.
28. The Accused, however, is found to have committed breach of the Order of 2000, in teeth of the law, proved to have State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 21 of 22 committed beyond all reasonable doubts the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and is accordingly hereby convicted for the above discussed reasons.
29. Copy of judgment pronounced today in open court be supplied free of cost, upon being checked and signed and be uploaded as per rules.
30. Relist for hearing on sentence on 14.2.2024.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 31.01.2024 (SHRIYA AGRAWAL) ACMM (SOUTH EAST):
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI State Vs. Satender FIR No. 224/2011 PS: Badarpur Page 22 of 22