Criminal Appeal No. 934 of 1987. Case: Yeshwant Pahuji Khandwi Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 934 of 1987 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P. N. Joshi, Advs. and For Respondents: S. J. Pingulkar, Advs. |
| Judges | V. Sahai, J. |
| Issue | Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955) - Sections 3, 7; Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order (1966) - Clause 3 |
| Citation | 1994 CriLJ 3647 |
| Judgement Date | July 20, 1994 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 12-10-1987 passed by the Special Judge, under the Essential Commodities Act Nasik, in E. C. Criminal Case No. 3 of 1985 convicting and sentencing him to suffer 3 months R. I. under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has come up in appeal before me.
-
The prosecution case in brief is that on 31-1-1985 at about 2.00 p.m. in the village Ghagbari, Taluka Surgana, the appellant was found selling kerosene oil and had no licence for its sale. This information was conveyed to P.S.I. to Dinkar Chavan who thereafter argued a raid on the shop of the appellant in the presence of panchas and police patil Suryaji Gaikwad. In that raid 30 litres of kerosene oil was recovered.
-
Thereafter at Police Station Surgana F.I.R. under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was lodged against the appellant for having contravened the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Orders, 1966.
-
After the usual investigation a charge sheet under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was filed against the appellant, in the trial Court a charge under the abovesaid sections was same appellant against to which he pleaded not guilty. His defence was that of denial. In the trial court on behalf of the prosecution three witnesses were examined. The learned judge believed the prosecution case and passed the impugned order.
-
I have heard Mr. P. N. Joshi for the appellant and Mrs. S. J. Pingulkar for the State of Maharashtra at a considerable length. I have also perused the statements of the witnesses recorded in the trial court, and the various exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution in the trial court. I have also gone through the impunged judgment. After giving my anxious consideration to the matter I am of the opinion that this appeal must succeed.
-
There is no dispute between the counsel for the parties that the appellant is alleged to have violated clause 3 of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Orders, 1966. Clause 3 of the aforesaid order reads as follows.
3. Prohibition against carrying on business as a dealer without licence. - No person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the authority.
"Dealer" has been defined in clause 2(c) of the aforesaid order, thus:
"(c) dealer" means a person engaged in the business of...
To continue reading
Request your trial