( 1 ) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-orig. convict (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) under Section 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of criminal Procedure. 1973, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03rd November, 1988 passed by learned Special Judge (Court no. 5 ). Ahmedabad. in Special Criminal case No. 1 of 1988, whereby he has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 read with Section 7 of the essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) I have heard Shri N. M. Kapadia. learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Shri A. J. Desai, learned additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State at length. Both of them have taken me through the oral as well as documentary evidence led during the course of trial and also the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate for this Court to state the prosecution case in brief. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was holding a licence for selling commodities in sabarmati area and was running a Fail price Shop. The appellant was also selling palmolin oil and was getting the same from the Government godown located near Civil hospital at Ahmedabad at special rales. That on 21st December 1982 at about 01- 00 p. m. the appellant got one barrel of palmolin oil and he took out the barrel of palmolin oil under a gate pass and he was supposed to take the said barrel of palmolin oil to his Fair Price Shop immediately. The entry was also required to be made in the stock Register and the entire stock was to be sold at the price Fixed by the Government to the card-holders. With the help of a labourer/ lariwala, the said barrel of palmolin oil was taken to his shop by the appellant and he had hired one labourer/ lariwala on that very day. On that day surprisingly the barrel of palmolin oil had not reached to the shop of appellant. On 22nd December 1982, the shop of appellant was checked by the officers of the Civil supply Department and the said barrel was not found. There was no document to show under which it can be inferred that the stock was sold on 21st December 1982 or during early hours on 22nd December 1982, prior to checking. On the contrary, it was found that the barrel of palmolin oil did not reach to the shop of appellant but he had directly disposed of the stock of palmolin oil purchased by him from the Government godown. It is further the case of the prosecution that two gunny bags of sugar though were found lying in the shop were not entered in the Stock Register and the appellant had also failed in displaying the price list of each material which was being sold from his shop. Initially the shop at the time of visit was closed. Thereafter the appellant was called and he had admitted that the barrel of palmolin oil purchased from the Government godown had not reached. Again cheeking of the shop was made after some hours by that time the officers had visited the Government godown and also met the person who was hired to carry the barrel of palmolin oil. On the second visit also, the authorities found that the barrel of palmolin oil had not reached to the shop of appellant. The statements of the appellant were recorded on both the visits on 22nd December 1982 and the appellant had signed the same in presence of concerned officers. Thereafter, civil Supply Department had initiated action and ultimately the Collector decided to confiscate the stock as well as amount of deposit paid by the appellant to the government for obtaining licence as Fair price Shop Dealer. The Departmental proceedings lingered for long, but ultimately the Collector found that this is a grave case and. therefore he ordered and authorized an officer-complainant to file a formal criminal complaint with police along with all relevant papers. The Police pr