Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-04-2000 passed by Special Judge, Raipur, District Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.05 of 1998 convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'E.C. Act') and sentencing them to undergo RI for 4 months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each with default stipulation.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that Food Inspector Ram Kishore Shukla (PW-1) along with Food Inspector T.R. Deshmukh (PW-4) conducted inspection of the shop styled as Ghanshyam Traders on 20-01-1998 in the village Kandel. Appellant No.1 was found present in the shop. On inspection, 20 bags of Swarna Paddy were found inside the shop and 19 bags were kept stored in the verandah of the shop. It was told by appellant No.1 that the paddy was purchased from villagers. It was also stated by appellant No.1 that the purchase and sale of paddy was made from their shop. Further, balance and measuring weights were also found. The inspection panchnama (Ex. P-3) was recorded on the spot. The articles i.e. bags of paddy, measuring weights and a receipt book of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti were seized vide Ex. P-4 which were handed over on 'supurdnama' vide Ex. P-5.

3. Another raid was conducted on the same day at the residence of appellant No.1. In total 55 bags of paddy were found stored in his place of residence. It was told by the villagers that appellant No.1 does the business of purchase and sale of paddy. A panchnama (Ex. P-6) was recorded on the spot. Articles found were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-7 which were handed over on 'supurdnama' to appellant No.1 vide Ex. P-8. A map was prepared vide Ex. P-9. Statements of the appellants were recorded. A report was submitted to the Collector (Food Section) Raipur vide Ex. P-11 by Ram Kishore Shukla (PW-1). The Collector, Raipur Vide order Ex. P-12, gave sanction for prosecution. A written complaint Ex. P-13 was lodged in the police station Arjuni against both the appellants, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P-14) was recorded and offence under Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act was registered against the appellants. In their further investigation, spot map (Ex. P-15) was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted.

4. The appellants were read out the substance of accusation. The appellants denied committing any such offence. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. On examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., appellant No.2 Arun Kumar Sahu denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and stated that he was not present at the time of inspection and he is ignorant about the allegations made by the prosecution. He pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. Appellant No.1 Bisahu Ram Sahu admitted that Ram Kishore Shukla (PW-1) along with his team came for inspection and during inspection, bags of paddy were recovered from his shop and from his place of residence. Balance and measuring weights were also recovered. He admitted about the seizure and supurdnama of the paddy bags and other articles. He denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and submitted that he is a cultivator of the paddy and the paddy which was recovered from his possession, was the product of his own agricultural field. He pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. Three witnesses were examined in defence. The impugned judgement was passed, by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

5. The grounds in appeal are that the trial Court has passed an erroneous judgement by giving incorrect finding of conviction. The appellants discharged their burden to defend themselves by bringing evidence that they are agricultural land owners and the paddy being the product of their fields was ex