( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S. T. C. No. 6 of 1994 on the file of the Special Judge for Cases under the Essential Commodities Act (Sessions Judge), Karimnagar against the conviction for the offence under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months imposed by the said Court by judgment dated 19-2-1997.

( 2 ) THE story of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellant is briefly as follows:

( 3 ) THE appellant-accused was a Fair Price Shop dealer of Kanukulagidda Village, karimnagar District. He was selling rice, sugar and other essential commodities to the ration cardholders. He was supposed to maintain proper accounts and show the correct stock of the commodities in his shop. On 21-9-1993 at about 1. 00 p. m. one kothuri Agaiah purchased one quintal of rice from the accused unauthorisedly and he was caught red-handed by the villagers and the rice was kept in the Gram Panchayat office. On a complaint made by the villagers, the Inspector of Police, VCCS, karimnagar surprised the shop of the accused on 22-9-1993 in the presence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and noticed excess stock of 1. 47 quintals of rice, shortage of 18 kgs. of sugar, improper maintenance of accounts, non-issuing of bills to the customers, possessing 23 ration cards of the villagers and unauthorized selling of rice of one quintal to a private person by name K. Agaiah. The Inspector, who was examined as P. W. 10, further noticed that the transactions of 19-9-1993 to 22-9-1993 were not entered in the registers resulting in variation in the ground balance of the stocks and it also revealed that the accused was diverting the public distribution system stocks to the black market. After conducting a detailed investigation, P. W. 10 laid a charge sheet against the accused.

( 4 ) THE lower Court took cognizance of the offences referred above and took up the matter for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined p. Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. Pl to P37. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. After considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the prosecution, the lower Court came to a conclusion that the accused was guilty for the offence under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, accordingly, convicted him and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The accused being aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower Court, preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality.

( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the essential Commodities Act, 1955 ?

( 6 ) THE prosecution in order to prove its case examined P. W. 1, a Revenue inspector and P. Ws. 2 and 3, the villagers, who were said to be the mediators for the inspection of the Fair Price Shop of the accused and signatories to Panchanama-Ex- p1 to prove the irregularities committed by the accused. P. Ws. 2 and 3 being the villagers and independent witnesses as usual turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P. Ws. 4 to 9 whose ration cards were available with the accused were also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. P. W. 10 gave a detailed description of the events took place at the fair Price Shop of the accused and proved the contents of Ex. P1 listing out the irregularities mentioned above. P. W. I, a revenue Inspector, who is also one of the panchas for Ex. P1-Panchanama, corroborated with the evidence of P. W. 10 in all respects. The accused did not come forward with any explanation either in