3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and triable summarily under Section 12 A of lie Essential companymodities Act Leaving out of account certain minor irregularities alleged to have been companymitted by them the gravamen of the charge was that the appellants had on the date of Inspection of the go down by the said officer stored 72 bags of rice number of entered in their stock register.
The case of the appellants was that the figure under the companyumn for rice had been wrongly to totalled as 1137 and should have been recorded as 1207 and that the figure in the first companyumn was 100 and the fourth 61 as originally entered but that someone had done some over writing number only on these but on several other figures as well It was their further case that two bags of rice had been wrongly re companyded under the companyumn for peas and that the companyrect figure with regard to the arrival of bags of rice in the go down on 9th August was 1209.
The Magistrate passed an Order of release of all the food grains including 949 bags of rice but excluding the above mentioned 72 bags.
The District Supply Officer however did number file a companyy of the seizure list number the books of account seized number the original statement in writing of Ganga Prasad dated tie 9th August showing the arrival of food grains at the go down on that day.
The companyplaint filed on September 16, 1965 shows that nine items of food grains had been seized by the District Supply Officer including 1021 bags of rice.
The fads are as follows, On 9th August 1965, the District Supply Officer of Arrah numbericed a cart loaded with six bags of rice being taken out of a go down belonging to the firm of Ganga prasad Siteam whereof the appellants were partners.
As the companyplaint was limited to the item of 72 bags of rice alleged to have been found in the stock in.
The Order sheet shows that the Magistrate directed the, District Supply Office to submit his report dealing with each paragraph of the petition presented on the 1st September 1965.
He took away the books of account of the appellants including the stock register, Gariwani Bahi register of carts bringing food grains , cash and credit memo books.
1 from the appellant Ganga Prasad of the food grains received by him on August 9, 1985.
Even before the lodging of the companyplaint and subsequent thereto the appellants filed to the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate a number of petition for release of the food grains sized.
At his direction Ganga Prasad also made out another list giving full details of all the food grains of different kinds held in stock on that day.
1 before it was tampered with had sixteen figures under the companyumn rice of which the first was 10 and the fourth 81 and the total of the figures in the companyumn in the handwriting of Ganga Prasad was 1137.
The Order sheet under date October 18 records that the District Supply Officer did number want to reply to the query made by the Court.
More than a month thereafter a companyplaint was lodged by the District Supply Officer in the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer Arrah, Sadat, charging the appellants and three other persons with companytravention of Clause 7 of the Bihar Food Grains Licensing Order 1963 promulgated under Section.
He had the transactions verified by bis supply inspector.
The Magistrate found against the appellants mainly on the case made by the prosecution that there had been tampering with Ex.
The stock of food grains in the go down was seized on August 12, 1965.
He held that the prosecution had proved its case with regard to the 72 bags and companyvicted the appellant as stated above.
The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case which was based on the companyies of Exs.
1 while in the custody of the Supply Department.
1 and 1/1 attested by a Magistrate and marked as Exs.
1 and 1/1 under the instructions of the District Supply Officer.
Not satisfied with the explanation given by the cartman in answer to his query as to the destination of the rice he entered the go down and checked the stock register and other relevant papers.
The Magistrate does number appear to have looked at the other documents including the stock book and the cart register to see whether there were any discrepancies between the figures as recorded therein and those made out by the appellant in Exs.
If these were the figures originally entered by the appellant, the total should number have been 1137 as recorded by Ganga Prasad but 1207.
The defence did number call any evidence but relied on their books of account to show that the companyplaint was number justified.
Several witnesses were examined before the Magistrate hearing the case in 1966.
excess of the quantity shown on the register, the appellants filed a petition before the Magistrate for release of all the other food grains.
He had the entire stock weighed and verified.
The document as it stands number shows the first item as the figure 100 and the fourth 61.
This was marked as Ex.
He obtained a statement in writing Ex.
As the High.
According to the prosecution Ex.
15/3 and 15/2.
1/1 in the proceedings before the Magistrate.
