Y.R. Meena, J.
1. This revision petition is filed by the State against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby the order of District Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated 21-1-81 was set aside.
2. The facts stated, in short, are that on 27-11-79 inspection of non-petitioner firm was done by Enforcement Inspector and on physical verification it was found that only 43 bags of sugar were there while in stock register 68 bags were shown and in this way there was an irregularity of 25 bags of sugar. Out of 25 bags, non-petitioner had showed the bills in respect of the sale of 3 bags. Thus, the irregularity was in respect of 22 bags of sugar, which was in contravention of Section 5(2), condition 3(ii) of the Sugar Dealers Licence Order. Enforcement Inspector seized the 43 bags of sugar and matter was presented before the Collector for disposal of the properly under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar, ordered for confiscation of the 43 bags of sugar on 21-1-1981. Against that order non-petitioner filed an appeal under Section 7 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar who has set aside the order of the Collector on the ground that assuming 22 bags of sugar were found short but it is not the irregularity in respect of 43 bags of sugar found on the spot. In his view, the irregularity may be in respect of 22 bags which were short, therefore, there was no justification in confiscation of 43 bags of sugar found on the spot and he set aside the order of the District Collector dated 21-7-87 and further directed that the sugar in question or its value alter expiry of the limitation should be returned to the non-petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, the State has come in revision in this Court.
3. Before me, learned Public Prosecutor Shri Singhvi submitted that there is no justification in holding that there is no irregularity in respect of 43 bags of sugar. The irregularity has established the moment, the sugar was found short on the spot than the sugar shown in the stock register. Here, the fact is not in dispute that the sugar is found less then shown in the stock register, therefore irregularity is proved and learned Sessions Judge has wrongly set aside the order of the District Collector. On the other hand, Shri M.K. Garg, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner, supported the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. Alternatively, he submitted that the non-petitioner has explained before the Collector that out of 68 bags of sugar, 25 bags of sugar were sold to different parties and names of purchasers to whom sold and quantity was also given but the bills were not issued as the bill book was with one Munim who took it away for recovery of the outstanding amounts against the persons to whom he was sold earlier. He further submitted that it is not a case of the State that there was any irregularity in the closing stock. The closing stock was found in order up to the previous day of the occurrence and as this is the practice that after sale of the day in the evening the entire account is completed and necessary entries are made in the account books. When no irregularity was found uptill the previous day of the occurrence, the Collector had not properly appreciated the facts and wrongly ordered for confiscation.
4. I have heard the rival submissions. In my view, the reason given by the learned Sessions Judge is not convincing. Once the stock on physical verification was found less or more than the shown in the register, that is an irregularity but the facts stated before the Collector and argued by learned Counsel for the non petitioner Sri Garg, have some force. It is normal practice in accounts that after sale of the day, only in the evening entries of sale and balance are to be made. It is not the case of the State that the closing stock of the previous day was found wrong. Not only that, here, the parties to whom the sugar was sold, have given the affidavits in respect of purchase of sugar in question. The accused for technical mistake should not be punished. The bills can be issued and entries of sale can be made before the closing balance of the day. Sometimes, it may also happen that seller gives its goods to the purchaser one approval basis and only after approval it becomes sale and entries are made accordingly. Therefore, in my view, the case is not passed against the non-petitioner or the reasons given above.
5. In the result, I find no force in the revision petition. The judgment of learned Sessions Judge is affirmed for the reasons aforesaid.
6. The revision petition is dismissed.