1. By way of present appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 29th April, 1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Special Case No.21 of 1991.
2. The short facts of the case is that one Natvarbhai Raval lodged F.I.R. against the appellant alleging that he had committed breach of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities Order and also under Section 3 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities Licence (Control, Supply and Declaration) Order, 1981 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is alleged in the complaint that when search was carried out at the premises of the appellant, 10 barrels of palmolive oil was found in possession of the appellant. The total quantity would be 1.5 quintal and thereby the appellant has committed breach. After the complaint was lodged, P.S.I. investigated into it and charge-sheet was submitted.
3. Thereafter charge was framed against the appellant, to which the appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter evidence was led and after hearing both the sides, the learned Special Judge, Court No.4, Ahmedabad vide his impugned judgment and order convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and ordered the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.350/-, in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 10 days.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29th April, 1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Special Case No.21 of 1991, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
5. Heard Mr.K.V. Shelat, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
6. Mr.Shelat, learned counsel for the applicant, states that the appellant has obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 26th September, 2011 received from the Department along with cover showing the stock. He, therefore, states that considering the document dated 26th September, 2011 obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Court concern may be directed to re-hear the Appeal afresh.
7. Heard Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and also perused papers produced before me. It appears from the document dated 26th September, 2011 obtained by the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005. I am of the opinion that the said document is required to be taken into consideration.
8. In view of above, present Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29th April, 1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Special Case No.21 of 1991 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court concerned with a direction to decide the said Special Case No.21 of 1991 afresh on the basis of additional evidence that may be produced by the appellant during the hearing and on its merits and in accordance with law, after affording full opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The Court concerned is directed to decide the said special case as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Record and Proceedings, if received, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z. K. Saiyed, J) Anup