The judgment emphasizes the necessity for the prosecution to conclusively prove essential elements, such as the recovery memo and sanction for prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.07.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2012, Deepak Gupta vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat in Criminal Case No.540 of 2009, State vs. Deepak Gupta, convicting the revisionist-accused under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing him with an imprisonment of two years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of four months’ additional imprisonment. It was further directed that the period spent by the revisionist-accused in jail in connection with the case shall be set-off.

2. The case of the prosecution starts from the raid allegedly laid on 17.06.2009 along with other shops and establishments in the go-down of revisionist-Deepak Gupta, owner of Deepak Khad Bhandar situated in front of his establishment at Banbasa near N.H.P.C. Road. According to the prosecution, in the said raid, the following fertilizers and seeds were found in the go-down of revisionist-accused:-

(i) D.A.P. 18: 46, 118 bag (50 Kg.)

(ii) N.P.K. 20 : 20 : 0 : 13, 17 bag (50 Kg.)

(iii) N.P.K. 12 : 32 : 16, 14 bag (50 Kg.)

(iv) Tarai Gold 15 bag (5 Kg.)

(v) Aquim 03 in number (12 Kg.)

(vi) Open fertilizers/seeds 14 in number (02 quintal).

3. As per the recovery memo, the revisionist could not produce the documents, so called for by the raiding party consequently, the shop was sealed. The first information report (Ext.Ka.1) was lodged in Police Station Banbasa, District Champawat with the allegation that from the establishment of the revisionist-accused “Deepak Khad Bhandar”, illegal fertilizers were found, which was an offence under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985, and Seeds Act, 1966.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid first information report, Case Crime No.968 of 2009 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, State vs. Deepak Gupta was registered in the Police Station Banbasa, District Champawat. A sanction under section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (UP amendment vide UP Act No.9 of 1974 w.e.f. 24.04.1974) was sought by the prosecution against the revisionist-accused. The District Magistrate, Champawat vide order dated 20.06.2009 (Ext.Ka-2) granted the sanction. The charge-sheet was submitted after investigation. The cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate and Criminal Case No.540 of 2009, State vs. Deepak Gupta was registered in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat. After supplying the prosecution documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the trial proceeded. The charges were framed against the revisionist-accused under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on 13.01.2010 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate; the revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 13 witnesses and the documentary evidence were also adduced and proved by the prosecution witnesses and exhibited during the trial.

6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after prosecution evidence, recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he came up with a case of complete denial and expressed his unwillingness to give any evidence in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by reason of the judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 convicted the revisionist-accused as stated above in para 1 of this judgment.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, revisionist took this matter in the appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Champawat which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2012, Deepak Gupta vs. State of Uttarakhand.

8. In appeal, the accused mainly challenged the recovery memo (Ext.Ka-3), inter alia, contending that the recovery memo was prepared only to falsely imp