# Pitambar Das v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1105
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1235 of 1988
- **Bench:** Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pitambar-das-v-state-of-u-p-54367
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

4 All. Pitambar Das Vs. State of U.P.
1105
34. Thus, we find that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
29.04.1989, passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in respect of the
surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, is not supported by any cogent evidence and is contrary
to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Govind Patil (supra). In light of
the above discussions, we hold that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 29.04.1989, insofar as it relates to the surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

35. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 29.04.1989, passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in
Sessions Trial No. 282 of 1985 (State vs. Brijendra Singh and another), arising out of Case Crime
No. 127 of 1985, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Bilsanda, District Pilibhit, in respect of
surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed.

36. The surviving appellant no. 2, Brij Raj Singh, is on bail and he need not surrender. His
bail bonds are cancelled, and the sureties are discharged from their liabilities.

37. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court along with the lower court
record forthwith for necessary compliance.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1105
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1235 of 1988

Pitambar Das ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether conviction of the appellant under Ss. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
could be sustained in absence of proof of violation of any control order or any provision of S. 3 of the Act,
1955 and whether there was compliance of S. 7(1)(b) of the Act. (Paras 26-31)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Conviction under Ss. 3/7 - Requirement of
contravention of control order - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Ss. 3 and 7 - S. 3 is an
enabling provision and penalty under S. 7 is attracted only when there is violation of a control
order or any provision made under S. 3 - Prosecution failed to mention any control order alleged
to have been violated and failed to establish contravention by the appellant - Conviction
unsustainable and liable to be set aside. (Paras 26-31)
Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Mens rea - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -
Ss. 3 and 7 - Mens rea is an essential ingredient and prosecution must establish intentional
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contravention - Appellant was merely In-charge of the Purchasing Centre and not a dealer and
prosecution failed to prove requisite ingredients of offence - Benefit of doubt available to
appellant. (Paras 26-30)
Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Contradictions and lapses in prosecution case -
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Ss. 3/7 - Serious contradictions in testimony of prosecution
witnesses, doubtful inspection, absence of evidence regarding nature and grade of wheat and
defective investigation - Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt - Acquittal
justified. (Paras 17, 19, 22, 23, 30, 31)
Criminal Law - Forfeiture - Non-compliance with statutory requirement - Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 - S. 7(1)(b) - Prosecution neither specified any control order nor produced material
showing compliance with S. 7(1)(b) - Mandatory statutory requirement not satisfied - Penalty
under S. 7 could not be imposed. (Paras 8, 29, 30)
Held: The prosecution has failed to mention basic requirement of the violation of any control order or the
violation of Section 3 of the Act - the appellant who was the mere In-charge of the Purchasing Centre and he
is not a dealer hence the question of any violation of the control order prima-facie does not arise or come into
existence - it is obligatory duty for initiation of the prosecution against any person that there must be act
committed by accused in contravention of any control order or any violation of provision of Section 3 of the
Act - there are serious contradictions in the story of the prosecution - there is no compliance of Section
7(1)(b) of the Act, 1955 - the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt -
the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to acquittal of the
charges under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Appeal allowed. (Paras 17, 19, 23, 2631) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Nathulal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43; Shambhu Dayal v. State of West Bengal (1990),
1990 LawSuit (SC) 287

List of Acts
Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Essential Commodities Act; control order; contravention; mens rea; Purchasing Centre; excess wheat; dealer;
In-charge; prosecution; inspection; contradiction; forfeiture; Section 7(1)(b); beyond reasonable doubt;
acquittal.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal arising from the judgment and order dated 20.05.1988 passed by
the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Budaun, in Special Trial Case No. 8 of 1987 convicting the appellant under
Ss. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh
Advs. for the Respondents:
Learned A.G.A. for the State.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned A.G.A.
for the State. The record has been perused.
4 All. Pitambar Das Vs. State of U.P.
1107
2. The present criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant, Pitambar Das,
against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge,
E.C. Act, Budaun, in Special Trial Case No. 8 of 1987 (State vs. Pitambar Das), whereby he has
been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years? rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
2,000/- under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. The basic prosecution case is that the accused, Pitambar Das, was challenged by the
police of Bisauli to stand trial for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as the ?Act, 1955?),
on the allegation that he was storing 12 quintals of wheat for illegal purposes. This was detected
during an inspection conducted by Sri S.P. Dasmana, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bisauli, on
30.05.1984 at the Purchasing Centre of the U.P. Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to
as the ?Purchasing Centre?).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Section 3 of the Act, 1955,
which reads as follows:

 "3. Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities.?(1)
If the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for
maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable
distribution and availability at fair prices, or for securing any essential commodity for the defence
of India or the efficient conduct of military operations, it may, by order, provide for regulating or
prohibiting the production, supply, and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein."

 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the aforesaid
provision is merely an enabling provision and there must be a control order in force. It is argued
that only in the event of a violation of such control order can any person be arraigned as an
accused. However, in the present case, the prosecution has neither referred to any control order nor
provided details of any alleged violation thereof by the appellant/accused. It is further submitted
that it is an admitted position that the appellant was only the in-charge of the purchasing centre and
was not a licence holder; therefore, the question of violation of any control order does not arise.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is no reference to any
control order or its violation either in the prosecution case or in the judgment passed by the learned
trial court. He has next submitted that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, whereas in the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to do so.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Section 7 of the Act, 1955, which
provides for penalties in cases of contravention of any order made under Section 3.

7. It is contended that Section 7 is attracted only when there is a violation of a control order
or any provision made under Section 3 of the Act, 1955. In the present case, no such violation has
been established against the appellant/accused; therefore, the question of invoking Section 7 does
not arise.
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. It has further been argued that the prosecution has failed to prove, even prima facie, that
any contravention was committed by the appellant so as to attract Section 7(1)(b) of the Act, 1955.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that any violation had occurred, no action in accordance
with Section 7(1)(b) has been demonstrated. The prosecution has neither specified any control
order allegedly violated by the appellant nor produced any document to show forfeiture of the
alleged excess 12 quintals of wheat said to have been recovered from the appellant for illegal
purposes.

9. It is thus submitted that the impugned judgment and order are wholly illegal and
unsustainable in the eyes of law, as no offence has been made out against the appellant/accused.
Accordingly, the same are liable to be set aside, and the appellant/accused deserves to be acquitted.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the
learned trial court is strictly in accordance with law and does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity. Therefore, the present criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. S.P. Dasmana, who deposed as P.W.-1, stated in his examination-in-chief that on
21.08.1987 he was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Bisauli, in May 1984. On
30.05.1984, in the afternoon, upon receiving complaints from farmers, he inspected the wheat
procurement centre of the State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd., situated at
Dahar Khakha, Bisauli, along with Shri Basant Ram Bisaria, N.T., Bisauli; Shri S.N. Srivastava,
Supply Inspector; and Ashok Kumar.

12. He further deposed that as per the records, 1251 quintals of wheat ought to have been in
stock; however, upon physical verification, 1263 quintals were found. Thus, 12 quintals of wheat
were found in excess of the recorded stock. The inspection was conducted in the presence of the
accused, Pitambar Das, who was the in-charge of the centre at that time. When questioned about
the excess quantity, he failed to give any satisfactory explanation. The accused, Pitambar Das,
along with the centre?s accountant, Shri Kuldeep Kumar, sought time to examine the records,
which was granted.

13. He further stated that on the next day, i.e., 31.05.1984, he again visited the said
procurement centre; however, even on that day, after examining the relevant records, the accused
could not provide any explanation for the excess quantity of wheat. In this regard, on 31.05.1984
itself, the accused wrote a statement in his presence, signed it, and handed it over to him. He also
signed the same. The handwritten and signed statement of the accused is on record and has been
marked as Ex. 1.

14. He further deposed that on the same day, he also got the filled wheat bags lying in
stock at the procurement centre counted, prepared a statement thereof, and obtained the signatures
of the Supply Inspector, Shri M.S. Srivastava, and the accused, Pitambar Das, on it. The said
document has been marked as Ex. 2. From the procurement centre, he also took into possession the
following documents relating to the purchase of wheat: one stock register, one food grain bill book,
food grain bill books Nos. 48 and 49, food grain bill book No. 483, ledger book No. 704, ledger
book No. 710, and ledger book No. 711. The written report (tehrir) of the incident was dictated by
4 All. Pitambar Das Vs. State of U.P.
1109
him at the spot, reduced into writing, read over, and signed by him. The same has been marked as
Ex. Ka-3.

15. He further deposed that on the same day, at about 2:30 PM, he got the case registered at
Police Station Bisauli. The accused produced the recovered excess wheat and related documents at
the police station. The documents were later produced before the Court in sealed cover and marked
as Exhibits 1 to 6. The seized registers, ledgers, and bill books bear his signatures as well as those
of other staff members and the accused.

16. He further stated that one day prior to lodging the report, he had visited the centre and
had taken the stock register with him. Wheat bags are stored at the procurement centre, and their
grading is determined by FCI. Rejected wheat is also kept there. At the spot, he got the total stock
counted and also conducted separate counts of Grade-1 and Grade-2 wheat. He did not obtain any
information from FCI regarding grading.

17. He further stated that in Material Ex. 1, it is mentioned that entries of Grade-1 wheat
commence from page 30 and entries of Grade-2 wheat from page 40. His signatures appear on page
4. He stated that he had examined the entire record and signed it after verification. However, he did
not sign pages 40 and 41 and admitted that those entries were neither seen nor produced before him
at that time. From the above testimony, it appears that P.W.-1 did not completely and carefully
inspect the entire record and appears to have acted in haste. There is no specific mention of
violation of any control order or any provision under Section 3 of the Act, 1955.

18. M.S. Srivastava, who deposed as P.W.-2, stated that he was posted as Supply Inspector,
Bisauli. He deposed that on 30.05.1984, Shri S.P. Dasmana, SDM, Bisauli, inspected the wheat
procurement centre in his presence, along with Shri Basant Ram Bisaria and Ashok Kumar Saxena.
The accused, Pitambar Das, was present, and the inspection was conducted in his presence.

19. He stated that upon comparison of records and physical verification, 12 quintals of
wheat were found in excess, for which the accused could not provide any explanation. One day?s
time was granted. On the next day, i.e., 31.05.1984, they again visited the centre, but the situation
remained unchanged. The accused gave a written statement (Ex. Ka-1), which bears his signatures.
A weighing statement (Ex. Ka-2) was also prepared. The written report (Ex. Ka-3) was prepared at
the spot on the dictation of the SDM and signed by him. Relevant documents were seized and
marked as Exhibits 1 to 7. In cross-examination, he admitted that no movement register was
maintained and that he had not signed any document on 30.05.1984. He further admitted that he
examined only the page of the register that was open and that he could not specify the grade of the
alleged excess wheat. Thus, his presence at the time of inspection on 30.05.1984 becomes doubtful,
which is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case. There are material contradictions between the
statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, particularly regarding inspection and verification.

20. P.W.-3, Ajay Pal Singh, is a formal witness who proved the check FIR (Ex. Ka-11) and
General Diary entry (Ex. Ka-12). His testimony does not materially advance the prosecution case.
Mere production of formal documents is not sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21. P.W.-4, Prem Narain, proved the sanction for prosecution dated 04.02.1987 (Ex. Ka13).

22. P.W.-5, Maharaj Singh, the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the steps taken
during investigation and proved the site plan (Ex. Ka-14) and charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-15). However,
in cross-examination, he admitted that he did not personally verify records from FCI, had no
knowledge of grading of wheat, and verified only a limited number of bags. He also admitted that
certain facts were not entered in the General Diary.

23. Thus, the investigation suffers from serious lapses. There is no clear evidence regarding
the nature, grade, or illegality of the alleged excess wheat.

24. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all allegations.

25. In defence, the appellant examined D.W.-1 Kuldeep Kumar, D.W.-2 Raja Babu Singh,
and himself as D.W.-3.

26. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the law laid down by the Hon?ble
Supreme Court in Nathulal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43 that in the matter of the
criminal proceeding mens rea is essential ingredients of criminal offence only where it is absolutely
clear that implementation of the object of the statue would otherwise be defeated that mens rea may
be necessary implementation be excluded from the statute.

27. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, as per Section 7 of the
Essential Commodities Act, an offence under Section 3 requires mens rea as an essential
ingredient. The storage of food grains, as per Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Food Grains
Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, was undertaken after applying for the requisite permit. The accused
was not informed about the rejection of his application, and the storage of food grains was done
under a bona fide belief that it would be legal to do so. Therefore, intentional contravention of
Section 7 of the Act cannot be inferred.?

28. He has vehemently relied that there was no mention of any licensing order which has
been violated by the appellant. He is not a dealer. There has been mens rea it has to proved by the
prosecution. The story of the prosecution is consistently contrary and not corroborative to each
other. In absence of the violation of any control order or any violation of provisions of Section 3 of
the Act, no penalty could be imposed upon the appellant under Section 7 of the Act. There is also
no compliance of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act.

29. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Shambhu Dayal v. State of West Bengal (1990), reported in 1990 LawSuit (SC) 287,
wherein it has been observed that while conferring wide powers as above on the Collector, the
legislature has also protected the dealer's interest by providing, that in the event, it is ultimately
found that he was not guilty of contravention of any order made under section 3, he shall be paid
the price realised with reasonable interest. But if the prosecution ends in a conviction, section
7(1)(b) enjoins that the property in respect of which the order was contravened 'shall be forfeited' to
4 All. Rammu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1111
the Government. The language of this clause is clearly mandatory and leaves no option to
the Court but to order forfeiture. This becomes clear if we read this clause in juxtaposition with
clause (c) which confers a discretion on the Court to order forfeiture of any packing, covering or
receptacle in which the essential commodity was found or any animal, E vehicle, vessel or any
other conveyance which was used to carry the same.

30. There are serious contradictions in the story of the prosecution. The prosecution has
failed to mention basic requirement of the violation of any control order or the violation of Section
3 of the Act. The prosecution has also failed to comply the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act.
The appellant who was the mere In-charge of the Purchasing Centre and he is not a dealer hence
the question of any violation of the control order prima-facie does not arise or come into existence.
The alleged competent person who inspected the Purchasing Centre of the Food Corporation of
India which is a Government Undertaking and even he fails to mention what kind of grade of the
wheat was recovered in excess alleged to be 12 quintals of wheat from the wheat procurement
centre, of F.C.1(Food Corporation of India) where the accused appellant was stated to be incharge.
It is obligatory duty for initiation of the prosecution against any person that there must be act
committed by accused in contravention of any control order or any violation of provision of Section
3 of the Act. There is no compliance of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act,1955. Therefore, the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

31. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down, the impugned judgment and
order dated 20.05.1988 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections
3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Consequently, his bail bonds and sureties stand
discharged.

32. The criminal appeal is accordingly allowed.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1111
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 1987

Rammu & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of judgment and order of conviction u/s302/34 IPC.

Headnotes