Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.

1. The appeal is against the judgment dated 30.4.92 of the Special Judge, Begusarai passed in Garhpura P.S. Case No. 4 of 1986 (G.R. No. 221/86) whereby the appellant Ram Sewak Mahton has been held to have violated the Clouse-10, 16 and 17 of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) order 1984 and also Clause-5(i)(ii), (vii) and 10 of Form-C (terms and conditions) of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) order 1984 and accordingly convicted under Sec. 7 read with sec. 12(A) of the essential commodities Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.

1. The prosecution commenced with written report (Ext.2) dt. 30.1.86 of the informant (P.W.3), a Supply Inspector who stated that on 29.1.86 at about 11 A.M. he (P.W.3) inspected the shop of the appellant who is P.D.S. dealer and found that a board was hanging at the shop and there was no entry in the board. He demanded register from the appellant and then the appellant went into his house and brought an old register of the period of October, 1985 with respect to stock and sell of sugar and kerosene oil. Any new register was not produced. At the insistence of the informant the appellant produced new register which showed that 700 liters of kerosene oil had been supplied on 25.1.86 but any quantity of kerosene oil was not found present in the stock. The appellant could not show any sell of the kerosene oil to the ration card holders nor any distribution register was produced. The informant also obtained a self written and signed statement (Ext.3) dated 29.1.86 of the appellant wherein he admitted that he had obtained a supply 700 liters of kerosene oil on 25.1.86 and that the stock of the kerosene oil had not been mentioned in the stock register and the stock of the kerosene oil was not with him nor there was any distribution register with him. Making of the statement by the appellant was witnessed by Upendra Paswan (P.W.1) who also put his L.T.I. on the statement with an endorsement that the statement was made in his presence. The informant also stated in his written report that he had seized two registers from the appellant by making a seizure list. The aforesaid report (Ext.2) of the informant was addressed to the Anchal Adhikari. On the basis of report, the Anchal Adhikari, Bakhri wrote to the Officer Incharge, Bakhri P.S. for institution a case against the appellant. Accordingly, F.I.R. was instituted and investigation commenced and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted and appellant was put on trial and on completion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as above.

2. As many as four witnesses were examined by prosecution P.W.1, Upendra Paswan is witness in whose presence, the statement (Ext.3) of the appellant is said to have been made, but this witness has turned hostile and he admitted his L.T.I. on the statement but he further deposed that the investigation of the shop was not made in his presence nor the statement was taken up in his presence.

3. The P.W.2, Md. Raza Ansari is the I.O. of the case. The P.W.3, Damodar Poddar is the informant and P.W.4 Ashok Kumar Singh is the wholesale dealer who was stated to have supplied 700 liters of kerosene oil to the informant.

4. The appellant also examined two defence witnesses D.V.1, Ram Balak Yadav is a purchaser of kerosene oil who deposed that on 7.4.86 he had purchased two liters of kerosene oil from the appellant for Rs. four and paise forty and he had also put his signature on the distribution register marked Ext.A. The D.W.2. Gultan Pd. Yadav was President of Vigilance Committee during the relevant time and he deposed that on 7.4.86 and 8.4.86 700 liters of kerosene oil was distributed on sell by the appellant and that the distribution was made in presence of the President and Members of the Vigilance Committee. He also deposed that 700 liters of kerosene oil was the quota for the month of January, 1986. He further deposed that the members o