JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 3 74(2) of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.03.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act and Sessions Judge, Balotara in Criminal Case No.6/1993, whereby he has been convicted for the offences under Sections 3 /7 and 3/9 of the Essential Commodities Act and for each count, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that the appellant was a Fair Price Shop Dealer in Ward No.24 of the Barmer. He received sugar for distribution in the November-December 1992 and January 1993. On inspection and enquiry, it was found that there were entries of distribution of sugar in the distribution register for many persons, whereas in the ration cards of the said persons, no corresponding entries were made. For some persons, there were double entries of distribution of sugar. The Enforcement Officer after conducting enquiry found certain irregularities and errors and submitted a report in this regard at the Police Station Barmer, which was registered as FIR No.222/1993 for the offences under section 3/7 and 3/9 of the Essential Commodities Act. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant.

3. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the aforesaid offences and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 9 witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 3 13 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 01.03.1995, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence brought on record is not sufficient to connect the appellant with the alleged crime; the appellant alone was not responsible for distribution of sugar; even if it is assumed that the relevant entries in the Ration Cards Ex.P/3 to Ex.P/9 were missing, it is not sufficient to constitute a criminal act. On these grounds, he prays for acceptance of the appeal and acquittal of the appellant.

5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment after apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record and as the prosecution has fully established the guilt of the appellant by producing cogent and clinching evidence, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for in this appeal.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment.

7. The learned trial court has reached to a finding that from the statements Pokar Singh (P.W.3), Tikma Ram (P.W.4), Dinesh Chandra (P.W.6) and Saubhagya Lal (P.W.7) and their ration cards, Ex.P/22, Ex.P/3, Ex.P/18, 11, as well as the Distribution Register (Ex.P/10), it is proved that the appellant has made wrong entries in the distribution register without distributing the sugar to these persons. The Enforcement Officer has stated in his testimony that on enquiry it was found that for the ration card holders,