TITLE: Gopal v State of Haryana
Decided On-: March 28, 2023
CRA-S-870-SB-2004 (O&M)
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice N.S Shekhawat
INTRODUCTION – Due to violating the terms of the Haryana Food Article (Licencing and Price Control) Order, 1985, the present appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and given a two-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The prosecution in the present case was launched on the basis of a written complaint filed by the Assistant Food and Supply Officer, Palwal against Firm M/S Balaji Enterprises, Commission Agent Palwal, and the present appellant/accused was the proprietor of the said firm. According to the allegations, the firm M/S Balaji Enterprises’ premises were inspected by P.D. Sharma, AFSO, and Dharam Chand, Inspector, Food and Supplies Department. According to information provided by the Haryana government, M/S Balaji Enterprises received 3578 quintals and 80 kilogrammes of wheat from Food Corporation of India, Punjab, for distribution, as evidenced by the firm’s stock register.
Aside from that, on 12.01.1997 and 13.01.1997, this firm purchased 319 quintals and 66 kilogrammes of wheat from M/S Jindal Trading Company, Sirsa. From 12.01.1997 to 13.02.1997, this firm received 4028 quintals and 46 kilogrammes of wheat in this manner. The firm should have distributed the wheat in accordance with government rules as well as the Haryana Food Articles (Licencing and Price Control) Order, 1985.
However, the firm issued fake cash memos and even failed to include the correct address of the customers on the cash memos, which is a violation of Clause 9 of the licence granted to the said firm. The aforementioned firm misappropriated the wheat by issuing fake bills and preparing bogus cash memos in which the addresses of the consumers were not mentioned.
The accused had thus broken the terms of the 1985 Haryana Food Articles (Licencing and Price Control) Order, which was punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. After the police looked into the situation, a challan was eventually filed against the accused in the appropriate court. According to an order from the learned Special Judge in Faridabad dated August 12, 1998, the appellant/accused had violated the terms of the Haryana Food Articles (Licencing and Price Control Order, 1985), which is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955. He was served with the notice of accusation, to which he pleaded not guilty and asserted his right to a trial by jury.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
Ten witnesses were questioned by the prosecution in support of the charge.Upon completion of the investigation in the current case, PW1 Amir Singh, SI/SHO, prepared the report in accordance with Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, the accused company, whose owner is the appellant, created phoney cash memos and displayed a false distribution of wheat. Additionally, he provided details about the thorough investigation he conducted and the fabricated bills that the current accused had created.He added, during his cross-examination, that no one else in their village had the name Nathan son of Hira Lal. Sanwal Singh Inspector, PW10, who had conducted the investigation, taken possession of the entire file, and recorded the statements of every witness, was questioned by the prosecution. Regarding the police investigation, he gave the information that was true.The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the prosecution’s evidence was concluded, and he pleaded his false implication. Leaning counsel for the appellant made the following argument: The court made a serious mistake by relying on the testimony of PW10 Inspector Sanwal Singh, who was unable to recover the accused’s stock register and bill books. Additionally, because section 100 of the Cr. P.C. was not followed and no independent witness was added at the time the record was recovered in the current case, the appellant was eligible for an acquittal by this Court. Further, the appellant’s learned counsel pointed out a few minor discrepancies in the testimony of various prosecution witnesses.
I believe that the ends of justice will be served after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the current case. If the appellant is ordered to be released on probation instead of receiving a substantive sentence, the conditions will have been adequately met. As a result, the appellant’s conviction for the charge brought against him is upheld, and it is ordered that the appellant be released on probation for good behaviour after posting a personal bond for Rs. 20,000 with a surety for the same sum, promising to maintain peace and good behaviour for a year and to pay his or her fines as and when required to do so during that year.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by– Steffi Desousa
