Sharad Kumar Gupta, J.

1. In this criminal appeal the challenge levied is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.07.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), C.G. in Spl. Criminal Case No. 205/1996 whereby and whereunder he convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

Conviction u/s. Section Sentence Fine sentence

3/7 of the EC Act RI for 2 years Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine RI for 3 months

2. In brief the prosecution story is that one person namely Dwarika Prasad was the registered owner of a tempo bearing registration No. MP/27/B-1586. He had appointed appellant as driver for the tempo. On 17.08.1996 co-accused Prahlad approached Dwarika Prasad and told him that he has a drum of kerosine which to be delivered at Ashok Petrol Pump. Dwarika Prasad asked the appellant to go along with tempo. Co-accused Prahlad loaded 200 ltr kerosene on the tempo and asked the appellant to deliver it at Ashok Petrol Pump. On the secret information of PW-2 Sub Inspector B.S. Kerketta seized the tempo along with 200 litres kerosene from appellant at Ashok Petrol Pump. He had no licence for keeping kerosene. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against him and co-accused Prahlad under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter called as EC Act). Trial Court framed charge punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the EC Act against appellant and co-accused Prahlad. They abjured allegation levelled against them and faced trial. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses. They did not examine any witness on their defence. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant as aforesaid however acquitted co-accused Prahlad from the charge punishable under section 3/7 of the EC Act.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal raising various grounds.

4. Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The evidence of investigating officer does not inspire confidence. Another seizure witness Ramkumar has not supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances appellant may be acquitted from the charge punishable u/s 3/7 of the Act of 1955.

5. Counsel for the State submitted that aforesaid conviction and sentence are based on clinching evidence led by the prosecution. He supported the aforesaid conviction and sentence and submitted that no interference is called for by this Court.

6. It would be pertinent to mention the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Kerosene Vyapari Anugyapan Aadesh, 1979 (in brevity Aadesh 1979) which reads as under:-

^^2- ifjHkk"kk,a & bl vkns'k esa] tc rd fd lanHkZ ls vU;Fkk visf{kr u gks %&

¼d½ ^^O;kikjh** ls vfHkÁsr gS dksbZ ,slk O;fDr tks fdjksflu ds Ø;&foØ; ;k foØ; ds fy, laxzg.k dk dkjckj] pkgs Fkksd O;kikjh vkaf'kd Fkksd O;kikjh ;k QqVdj foØsrk ds :i esa pkgs fdlh vU; dkjckj ds lkFk la;qDrr% vFkok i`Fkdr% djrk gS vkSj mlds varxZr mldk Áfrfuf/k ;k vfHkdrkZ 'kkfey gSA fdarq mlds varxZr ,slh rsy daifu;ka tks bl vkns'k ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V gS rFkk ,sls laxzg.k fMiksa ;k laLFkkiuk,a tgka ls lk/kkj.k turk dks dksbZ foØ; ugha fd;k tkrk gS] 'kkfey ugha gSA**

7. It would be pertinent to mention the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Aadesh 1979, which reads as under:-

^^3- O;kikfj;ksa dk vuqKkiu & ¼1½ dksbZ Hkh O;fDr vuqKkiu Ákf/kdkjh }kjk bl laca/k esa tkjh dh x;h vuqKfIr ds fuca/kuksa rFkk 'krksZ ds v/khu rFkk muds vuqlkj gh fdjksflu O;kikjh ds :i esa dkjckj djsxk vU;Fkk ughaA**

8. PW-2 B.S. Kerketta, the then Sub Inspector says in para 2 of his statement given on oath that on 17.08.1996 after receiving the information from informant, he had seized one tempo along with a drum containing 200 ltr kerosene from the appellant.

9. PW-1 Dwarika Prasad Sahu says in para 2 of his statement given on oath that he had handed over his Bajaj tempo and appellant to co-accuse