Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final verdict and order of the court (Para 35) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.8.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were partly upheld and the sentence was reduced from six months to three months. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (EC Act). It was asserted that SI Guler Chand (PW6), HHC Daulat Ram (PW1), HHC Hoshiar Singh (PW2) and Constable Pawan Kumar (PW10) had set up a naka at Masyana Nalti Chowk on 28.12.2008. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-22A-3289 came from Nalti towards Hamirpur at about 4.
The prosecution must prove that an accused is a dealer under the Essential Commodities Act to sustain a conviction for possessing kerosene without a permit.
The court confirmed conviction under the Essential Commodities Act while granting probation to the petitioner, acknowledging valid evidence despite some witness contradictions.
Possession of kerosene in excess of permitted amount without authorization constitutes a statutory violation warranting conviction; speedy trial is essential for justice under Article 21.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of revision, the principles of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, and the importance of proving facts to establish guilt.
The court emphasized that valid evidence presented by the accused must be considered when determining whether to frame charges, affirming the principle that suspicions alone are insufficient for pros....
The main legal point established is that the existence of strong suspicion, based on material such as witness statements, is sufficient to warrant a trial. Additionally, the burden is on the prosecut....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
