Punjab-Haryana High Court
Moti Lal vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 2002 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 2002
Date of Decision: 17.3.2011
Moti Lal
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Nobody had caused appearance for the appellant on 18.5.2010 and 7.1.2011. Thereafter, on 17.1.2011, this Court had issued directions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, to serve a Show Cause Notice upon the appellant as to why coercive action be not initiated against him as nobody had caused appearance on his behalf when the appeal was taken up for final hearing. In compliance thereof, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, has submitted the following report:-
"...Most humbly, I may state that in pursuance of order dated 17.01.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 2002, Show Cause Notice was issued to Moti Lal s/o Rameshwar Lal S/o Mange Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 2002 2 Ram R/o Kanjil Road, Jaggi Market,Kapurthala, through the S.H.O., P.S. City, Kapurthala. HC Sukhwinder Singh, P.S. City, Kapurthala, on 8.2.2011, has furnished report that the said Moti Lal son of Rameshwar Lal was Tea Vendor in Jaggi Market Kapurthala and has left that place about 5 years ago and recent address is not known. Again on 15.3.2011, HC Joginder Singh, P.S. City, Kapurthala, visited the place of appellant at the given address, who also furnished report that said Moti Lal is not available at the address given by him and has left said place. Copies of report dated 18.2.2011 of HC Sukhwinder Singh along with copies of statements of the persons of the surrounding area of the address given by the accused are enclosed herewith..."
From the report, it is evident that the appellant is not traceable, therefore, this Court proceeds to examine the record. After a perusal of the record, this Court formulates an opinion that conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained and without appointing any person as Amicus Curiae, the present appeal can be disposed of.
Appellant Moti Lal was named as an accused in case FIR No. 6 dated 15.1.1998, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The case of prosecution is that on 15.1.1998 at about 11. A.M., in the area of Ajit Nagar, Kanjli Road, Kapurthala, the Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 2002 3 appellant was found in possession of 13 cylinders without any authorization or licence, which were stored for the purpose of sale in black market to the general public and thereby he violated the provisions of Clause 3 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulations of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order").
The prosecution case has emerged from the testimony of PW.2 Kuljinder Singh, Sub Inspector. He has stated that on 15.1.1998, he was posted as an Incharge, Anti Gunda Staff, Kapurthala. On that day, he along with other police officials was present at Bus Stand, Kapurthala, where he received a secret information that appellant Moti Lal of Yadav General Store, Kanjli Road, Kapurthala, was illegally selling cooking gas cylinders. Banta Singh, Inspector, Food and Supplies Department, was summoned. He was joined in the police party and a raid was conducted. Appellant Moti Lal Yadav was found present in his shop. PW.2 Kuljinder Singh, Sub Inspector, had enquired from appellant Moti Lal, who had suffered a disclosure statement that he had kept 13 gas cylinders in his residential house in one of his rooms which was under lock and key and the possession thereof was in his exclusive knowledge and the gas cylinders were of Bharat Gas Company. The appellant had put his signatures upon the disclosure statement, Ex.PA, in Hindi. The disclosure statement was attested by Banta Singh, Inspector and Lakhwinder Singh, Constable. Thereafter, the appellant took the police party to his residential house, opened the lock and got recovered 13 gas cylinders Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Recovery memo Ex.PB was prepared and the same was also attested by Banta Singh, Inspector and Lakhwinder Singh, Constable. Ruqa Ex.PC was sent to the Police Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 2002 4 Station, for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was registered. In his cross-examination, PW.2 Kuljinder Singh, Sub Inspector, has stated that the secret information was received on 15.1.1998 at about 10.00 A.M. and on receipt thereof, Lakhwinder Singh, Constable, was sent to summon the Inspector, Food and Supplies Department and till his arrival, the police party remained present at the Bus Stand. The office of Inspector, Food and Supplies, Kapurthala, is at a distance of about 200 yards from the Bus Stand, Kapurthala. It was stated that an effort was made to join an independent person from the passers-by but none was ready to join the police party. This witness has further stated that only he had interrogated the accused and nobody else had participated therein. It is further stated that cooking gas cylinders were filled up with the gas. However, on checking by Banta Singh, Inspector, the same were found empty. These gas cylinders were supplied by Panthor Gas Agency, Military Area, Kapurthala.
PW.1 Banta Singh, Inspector, Food and Supplies Department, Kapurthala, has stated that on 15.1.1998, he was summoned by the police and joined him in the raiding party. On interrogation made by the police, the accused suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PA, which was signed by him and Lakhwinder Singh, Constable. Thereafter, 13 empty gas cylinders were recovered from the house of accused. In cross- examination, this witness stated that he was verbally directed by the District Food & Supplies Controller, Kapurthala, to join the police party. PW.3 Dafedar Irayia Bhindigiri has brought the record of Panthor Gas Service and has stated from the number of the cylinders that these were Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 2002 5 issued by their Agency.
Thereafter, the statement of accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and gave the following version:-
"...I was running a tea stall and had a dispute with my landlord. Some military personnel were also residing in a room of that building. They locked the room while going and handed over the key to me with the direction to give the key to their man when he come. Subsequently, the police came there, they required (sic) (inquired) about the key of the room and took me along. They took thirteen gas cylinders in their custody from that room. Since the landlord was inimical towards me he got me falsely implicated in this case. The military men came back after about two months..."
Thereafter, the accused has examined Harbhajan Singh as DW.1, who stated that the appellant was having a dispute with his landlord and whenever the Army personnel used to go out, they used to entrust keys either to the shopkeepers or somebody else.
Clause 3 of the Order reads as under:-
"3. Restriction on possession and consumption of Liquefied Petroleum Gas.
(1) No person shall be granted by an Oil Company or a distributor more than one Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 2002 6 connection for consuming liquefied petroleum gas.
(2) No person shall possess or use liquefied petroleum gas filled in cylinders or in bulk from unless he has received supply thereof from a distributor or from an oil company.
(3) No person shall use liquefied petroleum gas except for cooking or for such purpose as may be declared by a general or special order by the Central Govt.
(4) No distributor shall supply liquefied petroleum gas filled in cylinders to any person other than a consumer possessing a valid authorization from an oil company. (5) No person shall fill any cylinder with liquefied petroleum gas or fill liquefied petroleum gas from one cylinder to another or from one container to another unless authorised to do so by the Chief Controller of Explosives to the Government of India..."
The charge, as framed against the appellant, is that he has violated Clause 3 of the Order. A perusal of Clause 3 of the Order reveals that a person shall not be granted more than one connection for consuming Liquefied petroleum gas by an Oil Company or a distributor. Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 2002 7 The person is stated to have committed an offence where a person possesses or uses Liquefied Petroleum Gas filled up in cylinders or in bulk from unless the same is received from the distributor or an Oil Company. The person is said to have committed an offence if the Liquefied Petroleum Gas is used for any other purpose except for cooking, as may be declared by a general or special order by the Central Government. No distributor shall supply Liquefied Petroleum Gas, filled in cylinders to any person other than a consumer possessing a valid authorization from an Oil Company. A person is said to have committed an offence if he filled the cylinder with Liquefied Petroleum Gas form one cylinder to another or from one container to another unless authorized to do so by the Chief Controller of Explosives to the Government of India.
In the present case, as per the admission of PW.2 Kuljinder Singh, Sub Inspector, the cylinders were empty. PW.1 Banta Singh has also stated that the empty cylinders were recovered from the possession of the appellant. Even Clause 4 of the Order states that no person shall store or use or cause to be stored or use a cylinder filled with Liquefied Petroleum Gas. In the present case, the cylinders, admittedly, were not filled up with gas. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any violation of the above said Order by the appellant. Since the cylinders, so recovered, were empty, violation of the Order is not made out.
Hence, conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained and the present appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence, awarded upon the appellant, are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 2002 8
However, it is necessary to put a word of caution that in the present judgment, acquittal of the appellant has been recorded as no violation of the Order is made out. Subsequently, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulations of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order, 2000"), was issued and the ratio of the present judgment shall have no bearing so far as the Order 2000 is concerned.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 17, 2011 "DK"