CRIMINAL APPEAL 24/1983 on 9 June 1994

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 216/1994Subhash Chandra Vs. State Date of Order :: 26[th] March 2010

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Mr.M.K.Garg ) for the petitioner Mr.Shrikant Verma)

Mr.O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor for the State

.....

BY THE COURT:

This revision petition is directed against the judgmentand order dated 09.06.1994 as passed by the AdditionalSessions Judge No.2 Sriganganagar in Criminal AppealNo.81/1992 whereby the learned Appellate Judge partlyallowed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against thejudgment and order dated 31.08.1991 passed by the ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal CaseNo.24/1983; and, while affirming the conviction of thepetitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the EssentialCommodities Act, altered the sentence awarded by the ChiefJudicial Magistrate to that of rigorous imprisonment for threemonths with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment offine, to further simple imprisonment for one month.

The accusation in this case had been directed againstthe petitioner Subhash Chandra and one Niranjan Singh, saidto be related with the firm Garg Fertilizer Company, JawaharMarket, Sriganganagar. It was alleged that on 19.01.1979

Shyam Sunder Goswami, Enforcement Officer carried outinspection at the business premises of the said firm GargFertilizer Company and found that there were 45 bags ofmanure available in the shop allegedly purchased from oneDarshan Singh who had purchased about 130 bags of manurefrom the godown of Kisan Co-operative Marketing Society. Itwas also alleged that 55 bags were sold by the firm to thecustomers without issuing bills and without even obtaining billsof purchase from Darshan Singh. It was alleged that thegoods in question were not shown in the stock register eithernor the firm had displayed the price and the stock position.The allegations were essentially of violation of therequirements of Rajasthan Essential Commodities (Stock andPrice) Order, 1977. Upon filing of the complaint and after thestatement of PW-1 Shyam Sunder Goswami, EnforcementOfficer, charges were framed against the petitioner andNiranjan Singh and after trial, while Niranjan Singh wasacquitted, the petitioner was convicted by the learned TrialCourt for the offence under Section 3/7 of the EssentialCommodities Act. The learned Appellate Court affirmed thefinding of the learned Trial Court but reduced the sentence asnoticed hereinbefore.

Seeking to assail the orders aforesaid, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned ordersstand vitiated for the case having not been tried in asummary manner. It is also submitted that the learnedCourts have acted illegally in not considering the testimony of Darshan Singh DW-1 who clearly deposed that he had giventhe bags to the firm as against the amount due in him. Thelearned counsel further submitted that no independentwitnesses have been examined in the case and rather theentire search proceedings were illegal for having been carriedout without search warrant. The learned counsel furthersubmitted that there had otherwise not been any allegations ofblack marketing against the petitioner and even if it weretaken to be a case of mistake in making the requisite entriesin the stock register, the petitioner ought not to have beenvisited with harsh punishment.

Having given a thoughtful consideration to thesubmissions and having examined the record, so far theconviction of the petitioner is concerned, this Court is unable tofind any material illegality or irregularity in the orders aspassed by the learned Magistrate and as affirmed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge nor could the trial be saidto have vitiated nor any prejudice has been shown.

Conclusion

However, so far the quantum of punishment isconcerned, it is noticed that the accusation relates to theincident of the year 1979; and in its essence, the accusationagainst the petitioner had been of the technical offence in notmaintaining the stock register properly. In the given set offacts and circumstances, the present one does not appear tobe a case for imposing the sentence per Clause (a)(ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It isnoticed that the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 09.06.1994 but execution of thesentence was suspended by this Court in this revision petitionon 22.06.1994. The accused-petitioner has faced this case formore than 30 years and taking into consideration the totalityof the circumstances including the nature of accusationcoupled with the fact that the technical offence was committedmore than 30 years back, this Court is of opinion that no usefulpurpose would be served with imprisonment of the petitioner atthis length of time; and interest of justice shall be served withmodification of the sentence awarded to the petitioner forimprisonment to the term already undergone withenhancement of fine following the decision of this Court inPrabhu Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan: 1990 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 191.

Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed tothe extent indicated above. While the conviction of thepetitioner under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Actis maintained, the sentence as awarded, in the givencircumstances, is altered to that of the period of imprisonmentalready undergone but with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (twothousand), and in default of payment of fine, to further undergothree months' simple imprisonment.

The fine aforesaid shall be deposited by the petitioner inthe Trial Court within a period of three months failing which,the learned Trial Court shall take appropriate steps inaccordance with law.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.