The court upheld the conviction under the Essential Commodities Act for illegal storage of paddy, affirming the statutory licensing requirements and adjusting the sentence for societal reintegration.

1. In this criminal appeal the challenge levied is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-7-2000 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Raipur, MP (now CG) in Spl. Criminal Case No. 4/1998 whereby and whereunder he convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: -

2. This is admitted by the appellant that he was running grocery shop at village Dheemartikur. On 29-12-1997, P.W. 1 Food Inspector Ram Kishore Shukla had inspected his grocery shop. He did not have the licence required under Madhya Pradhesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991 (hereafter called as 'O.1991'). Said Food Inspector had seized paddy by seizure vide Ex. P - 2 from him. He had handed over the seized paddy to him on supurdnama vide Ex. P - 3.

3. In brief the prosecution story is that said Food Inspector had found that appellant had stored 37 bags, each bag contained 70 kg paddy. During inquiry, it was found that he was purchasing the paddy from villagers and used to store it and thereafter sell it to local dealers. Said Food Inspector prepared inquiry panchnama. Thereafter he submitted the inquiry report to Collector Raipur who ordered him to lodge the FIR against the appellant. He wrote a letter to SO Arjuni to lodge the FIR against the appellant. On 19-2-1998, an FIR was lodged against the appellant. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against him under S.3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter called as 'Act of 1955').

4. Trial Court explained the particulars of the offence punishable under S.3 read with S.7 of the Act of 1955 to appellant. He abjured allegations levelled against him and faced trial. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. He examined one witness on his defence. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal raising various grounds.

6. Counsel for the State submitted that aforesaid conviction and sentence are based on clinching evidence led by the prosecution. He supported the aforesaid conviction and sentence and submitted that no interference is called for by this Court.

7. Counsel for the appellant argued that alleged O.1991 is not the part of the case, thus this Court cannot look into the same.

8. As per the provision of S.57 of the Evidence Act, this Court can take judicial notice of aforesaid O.1991. Thus this Court disallows the aforesaid argument of counsel for the appellant.

9. It would be pertinent to mention the provisions of S.2(e) of the O.1991 which reads as under : -
"2(e) "Dealer" means a person who is engaged or intents to engage in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of any one foodgrain specified in Schedule - I in quantity of 10 quintals or more at any one time and in respect of all foodgrains taken together in quantity of 50 quintals or more at any one time, and in addition to the Sugar 10 quintals, all kinds of pulses 10 quintals, edible oils including hydrogenated vegetable oil i.e. vanaspati 5 quintals, edible oilseeds 30 quintals, and Gur 10 quintals or more at any one time, whether on one's own account or in partnership or in association with any other person or as commission agent or Adhatiya (not including Kachha Adhatiya) or miller and whether or not in conjunction with any other business, but does not include a person who -
(i) Stores any schedule commodities produced by him by personal cultivation; and
(ii) does