( 1 ) THE present appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad passed in Special Criminal Case No. 13 of 1989 on 7th November, 1989. The appellant came to be tried for offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, so also, he was found guilty for violating the provision of Kerosene (Restriction on Use) Order, 1966 by the trial Court and came to be convicted therefor. The learned trial Judge after recording conviction and after hearing the accused on quantum of punishment, sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 (three) months.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case can be stated thus:-The complainant was discharging his duty as Traffic Police Sub Inspector at S. T. Circle between 5:00 p. m. and 9:00 p. m. At that time, some other Police Officers, so also, the expert persons of Forensic Science Laboratory were also present with him. It is the case of the prosecution that one rickshaw came from Paldi which was emitting excessive smoke and therefore, it was intercepted by the complainant and rickshaw was stopped. However, the rickshaw driver ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the sample of fuel was taken from the fuel tank of the rickshaw by the Police in the presence of Panch. On preliminary analysis done by the F. S. L. persons, it was found that the kerosene was mixed with the fuel recovered from the tank of the rickshaw. Thereafter, the adequate sample of fuel was taken in a bottle from the tank of the rickshaw in a sealed bottle and signatures of the complainant and Panchwitnesses were also obtained. On detailed analysis, the expert of the F. S. L. found that the sample which was taken from the tank of rickshaw was mixed with kerosene-hydrocarbons. In the meantime, the owner of the rickshaw was informed and on 3/10/1988 he had presented the rickshaw driver. The Police had arrested him. Offence was registered and case was investigated. Ultimately, the Investigating Agency, having found sufficient material to connect the accused-appellant with the crime, filed charge-sheet.

( 3 ) AFTER considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the Special Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution was successful in establishing charges levelled against the appellant and therefore, convicted the accused-appellant for the said offence by the impugned judgment dated 7th November, 1989 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 13 of 1989. It is this judgment and order that has given rise to this appeal.

( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Imran H. Pathan, for Mr. M. M. Tirmizi represents the appellant. Learned A. P. P. , Mr. A. J. Desai represents the State.

( 5 ) RECORD and proceedings are before me and I have been taken through the same by both the sides during the course of hearing.

( 6 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Pathan, has submitted that the accused has not been accorded proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned trial Judge ought to have given some time so that the accused could have arranged some other advocate. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge could have arranged a Counsel from Legal Aid. Mr. Pathan, has submitted that the accused-appellant is a poor rickshaw driver, which was evident from the fact that he was driving the rickshaw of the original owner. The original rickshaw owner also belongs to lower strata of society. The absurdity on the part of the trial Court has resulted into the conviction of the appellant, otherwise he could have been acquitted like the other accused who has been acquitted at the conclusion of the trial on similar set of facts.

( 7 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Pathan has further submitted that there are material contradictions and it is doubtful that the Panchas were present when the rickshaw was stopped by the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that Panchas were also present before the rickshaw was stopped. Against this, the Panchas have stated that r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document