JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Thane, in Special Criminal Case No. 25 of 1988, whereby he acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him in context with section 8 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Essential Commodities Act for convenience) for infringement of Clause 3 of Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Retail Dealers Licence Order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as order for convenience).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 8th of December, 1987, the premises of Shakti Paints, Ulhasnagar 3, were raided and five drums were seized in view of a panchanama. On 17th of December, 1987 the samples were taken out from those drums and the samples of kerosene were despatched to Chemical Analyser. The Chemical Analyser opined that the said samples contained kerosene. The respondent was indicted and faced the trial, which resulted in an order of his acquittal, which is the subject-matter of challenge of this appeal.

3. Shri Saste, A.P.P. for appellant vehemently argued and submitted that the learned Special Judge committed an error in disbelieving the prosecution case when the evidence of Officers of Police Station who raided the said premises, was sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the samples were taken out from those drums and were despatched to Chemical Analyser, who certified that the samples were of kerosene. It is his submission that when said evidence was available the Special Judge, ought to have convicted respondent for the offence for which he was charged, and as it was not done, this Court be pleased to allow this appeal and pass the order of conviction and sentence against the respondent.

4. Shri Gupte, Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 9 of the impugned judgment are self eloquent and they indicated as to how the prosecution was substanceless. He submitted that though sufficient opportunity was available, the investigating agency did not collect the documentary evidence to show that the said premises were in ownership and possession of the respondent. According to him the prosecution was unable to establish that the respondent was in possession of those five drums. He further submitted that when those five drums were seized under panchanama, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the samples were not immediately collected and therefore, the trial Judge has discarded the said evidence in respect of certificate of Chemical Analyser. He justified the order of acquittal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. The paragraphs Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment clearly show, as to how the learned Special Judge, has appreciated the evidence on record by applying the judicial mind. He has rightly pointed out that though sufficient opportunity was available, the investigating agency did not collect any documentary evidence to show that the respondent was concerned with the said premises from which those five drums were seized. In addition to that, the Special Judge pointed out that the samples were not collected immediately after seizure of those five drums and there has been sufficient delay of 9 days in collecting the said samples. The samples were not collected in presence of respondent and the panch witnesses, as evidence of panch witnesses shows that the samples were not collected in presence of an independent witness. The prosecution has not adduced any satisfactory explanation for explaining the delay. Therefore, the learned Special Judge was right in discarding the certificate of Chemical Analyser, which was produced by the prosecution in support of its case.

6. Because, it is the duty of every investigating agency to collect samples of concerned commodity as soon as they have been seized, and those samples should be collected before

Click Here to Read the rest of this document