Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P. Judgement Given By: ... on 8 October, 2013
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 2418/1998
Rakesh Kumar
Vs.
State of M.P.
As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.
Shri S.C. Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Siddharth
Datt, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, PL for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
(8/10/2013)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant u/s 374 (2) of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12/10/98 passed by Special Judge, Seoni in special case no. 21/96 whereby being convicted u/s 3 (2-h) (1) read with section 7 (1-a) (1) of Essential Commodities Act, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer further S.I for 2 months.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that on 21/01/96 R.K. Sharma (PW-6) SHO, police station Seoni has inspected the vehicle of appellant Rakesh Kumar and found that he was involved in transporting the gas cylinders from Seoni Gas Agency to Lakhnadon. At the time of inspection he found 36 filled gas cylinders and 3 empty gas cylinders alongwith the consumer cards pertaining to aforesaid gas cylinders. Same were seized 2 and an offence u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been registered against the appellant. Appellant has been arrested. After usual investigation, he has been charge sheeted before the Special Judge (E.C. Act). Learned Special Judge framed the charge as to the effect that appellant was found in possession of 40 LPG gas cylinders whereby he committed the breach of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 and the same is punishable u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
3. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. He has not adduced any evidence in his defence. After appreciation of evidence on record, trial Court convicted and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court committed the illegality in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the transportation of the gas cylinders to the consumers from Distributor to the place of consumers is not amount to breach of any Rule of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993. Under such circumstances, he prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment and finding recorded by the Court below.
6. I have perused the impugned judgment alongwith the record of trial Court. R.K. Sharma (PW-6) SHO, 3 Multai has stated that he received a secret information that appellant is transporting the gas cylinders from Seoni to Lakhnadon on 21/01/96. He inspected his vehicle no. M.P.20/D-9994 and found that appellant was transporting the gas cylinders from Pilakhtara Gas Agency, Seoni to the consumers residing at Lakhnadon. He seized as many as 40 gas cylinders alongwith the consumer cards. Other witnesses like Pitambar Soni (PW-1), A.S. Ansari (PW-2) and S.L. Dubey (PW-4) have categorically stated that they are resident of Lakhnadon and having consumer cards of LPG Gas Agency which is situated at Seoni and appellant was the person who took their cards and money for getting fill the empty gas cylinders from Pilakhtara Gas Agency, Seoni. They stated that for this purpose appellant takes some service charges.
7. After considering the aforesaid evidence on record, it is explicitly clear that appellant was not involved in any illegal transportation of the LPG gas cylinders. As per Rule 4 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 the transport and store of cylinders filled with LPG gas is not illegal except if the same was not transported in upright position. Case of the prosecution itself shows that appellant found in possession of gas cylinders (some were filled and some were empty) alongwith the consumer cards and he told the inspecting officer that he is involved in supplying the aforesaid gas cylinders from Pilakhtara Gas Agency, Seoni to Lakhnadon. In these circumstances, appellant may be considered as a delivery person who could have been 4 employed for wages or otherwise. For this purpose appellant was taking his service charges of Rs. 30/- each gas cylinder which cannot be said to be illegal and same cannot be considered as any breach of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 however, if any breach of Rule 3 (4) committed, same was committed by Distributor of Gas Agency who has not been made accused by prosecution.
8. Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, I am of the view that trial Court has committed the illegality in recording the conviction u/s 3 (2-h) (1) read with section 7 (1-a) (1) of Essential Commodities Act against the appellant and same is liable to be set aside.
9. Consequently, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 12/10/98 passed by Special Judge, Seoni is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted to the charge u/s 3 (2-h) (1) read with section 7 (1-a) (1) of Essential Commodities Act. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and personal bonds stand discharged.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately alongwith copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance.
(G.S.Solanki) Judge navin