Non-compliance with statutory search procedures can create reasonable doubt, invalidating the prosecution's case in criminal trials involving statutory offenses.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3 and 7 - U.P. Foodgrains Dealers’ (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1976 - Conviction for hoarding 100 bags of wheat without proper license, resulting in imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1000/- - Deficiencies in search and seizure procedure leading to doubt on prosecution’s case - Compliance with Section 100 Cr.P.C. is crucial - Prosecution failed to prove that the search was carried out lawfully. (Paras 11, 22, 28)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted based on the recovery of 100 bags of wheat at his shop, where the prosecution alleged non-compliance with licensing conditions. Defended by witnesses claiming ownership of the bags, who stated the bags were kept outside his shop. (Paras 4, 23)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to establish the chain of evidence regarding location of the seizure and did not call independent witnesses as required. The appeal was allowed based on lack of evidence supporting conviction. (Paras 26, 28)

Issues: The main issues were the lawfulness of the search and the sufficiency of evidence to uphold the conviction. (Paras 20, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-compliance with search regulations invalidates the prosecution's case and creates reasonable doubt on the evidence presented. (Paras 21, 28)

Result: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside.

Table of Content
1. conviction based on evidentiary findings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10)
2. arguments regarding prosecution's failure to prove guilt. (Para 8 , 9)
3. legal basis for storage and license compliance. (Para 11 , 12)
4. requirement of adherence to procedural laws in search and seizure. (Para 14 , 19 , 20)
5. non-compliance raises doubt over prosecution's case. (Para 21 , 22 , 28)
6. appeal succeeds; accused granted benefit of doubt. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. This case is listed under heading, “Supreme Court in Model Action Plan Cases-more than 30 years’ old, not be adjourned.”

2. Heard Sri Siddharth Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Chandrabadan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Present criminal appeal is preferred against judgment and sentence dated 10.04.1987 passed by Special Judge (Economic Offences), Agra (the Sessions Court) in Criminal Case No.3 of 1985 ( State Versus Prakash) for offence under Sections 7 read with Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Hari Parvat, Agra, whereby the Trial Court has punished the accused-appellant for rigorous imprisonment of six months for violating Clause 3 of U.P. Foodgrains Dealers’ (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1976, along with fine of Rs.1000/-and in default whereof directed rigorous imprisonment of one month.

4. The prosecution case as disclosed from F.I.R. dated 20.10.1983 lodged at 17:35 hours by Sri Asha Ram Prabal, ARO, Lohamandi, Agra, registered as Case Crime No.630 of 1983 reveals that on 20.10.1983 at 10 a.m., the informant along with Inspectors and Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra, inspected the Galla Mandi, Ghatia Azam Khan Agra, where he had inspected the shop of the accused-appellant and found therein 100 bags of wheat weighing 100 quintals. On asking for license and the documents, he failed to show the same. The wheat was seized and gave in possession of M/s Ramesh Chand Naresh Chand.

5. Charge-sheet was submitted after investigation. The prosecution has produced PW-1 Asha Ram Prabal, ARO. The counsel for the appellant-accused, who was defending the trial has not disputed the genuineness of the prosecution documents, Exhibits Ka-3 to 8, which led to dispensation of formal proof of those documents. The prosecution, thus concluded.

6. The appellant-accused has produced two witnesses, DW-1 Suresh Chand and DW-2 Uda Ram.

7. The Trial Court has found that the prosecution has proved its case. The defence witnesses are not reliable, as they did not know the appellant-accused, but despite that they have allegedly kept their bags of wheat in his shop. The Trial Court further considered that if the bags of wheat is kept outside the shop, the same cannot be believed. Further held that the appellant was a retailer who could keep only 25 bags of wheat. He has no document to show 100 bags in his shop and therefore, held that presumption under Section 10-C of Essential Commodities Act got attracted. Hence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as above.

8. Sri Siddharth Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that 100 bags of wheat was recovered in front of the shop of the accused-appellant and not inside the shop. There is no independent witness of seizure. The prosecution failed to prove the case and incorrect presumption is drawn against the accused-appellant. It is lastly submitted that appellant is more than 80 years of age. Therefore, he prayed that appeal be allowed and judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside.

9. Per contra, Sri Chandrabhan, learned A.G.A. submits that the conviction has rightly been recorded by the Trial Judge. The prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt. The documents have been admitted by the counsel for the accused-appellant, which attracts Section 294 Cr.P.C., as the genuineness of document is not disputed. The Trial Judge has considered the deposition of defence witness and found them as planted witnesses. The b