Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1446 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2001-09-12

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 25.4.1989 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 7/86 whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant for violation of Clause 3 of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1980 punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him as under: Asstt. Engineer (Civil) B.E. (Civil) or qualifications declared equivalent by Government with 3 years service as Junior Engineer (Civil) or if Diploma Holder (civil) from a recognised institution with 10 years requisite experience as Sub Engineer (Civil) or Matriculates with 15 years requisite experience as Sub Engineer (Civil) Note: Prior to the date the cadre of Junior Engineers has been separated as Sub Engineers the service as Engineering Subordinate or Junior Engineers shall count as experience or service in view of Rule 20 as hither to fore. (i) The case of prosecution in short is that on 28.12.1985, at about 4 p.m., P.W. 3, Mangi Lal, Enforcement Inspector, Sujangarh checked the firm and shop of M/s. Radha Krishna Mangi Lal in presence of two Motbirs P.W. 2 Dhanraj and P.W. 4 Askaran. The said shop was in the proprietorship of the accused appellant. On checking he found 36 quintal Bazra, 12 quintal Wheat and 2.10. quintal rice etc. for which he was not having licence as required under the provisions of Order of 1980 and thus, he contravened Clause 3 of the Order of 1980 punishable under Section 3/7 of the EC Act. P.W. 3 Mangi Lal prepared Fard of checking and the same is Ex.P/1. Thereafter P.W. 3 Mangi Lal lodged report Ex.P/4 with the Police Station Chhapar and thereafter regular FIR Ex.P/5 was chalked out. 2. On 21.2.1987, the learned trial Judge framed charge for offence under Section 3/7 of the EC Act for violation of Clause 3 of the Order of 1980 against the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. During trial as many as 5 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. The accused appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied to have committed any offence and 3 witness were examined in defence. 4. 3. During trial as many as 5 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. The accused appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied to have committed any offence and 3 witness were examined in defence. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, Churu after conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above. 5. Aggrieved from the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. 6. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the accused appellant has not assailed the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu by his judgment dated 25.4.1989, but it has been argued on behalf of the accused appellant that at the relevant time by notification dated 27.8.1980 and 14.11.1983 for foodgrains upto 30 quintal, no licence was required and thus, since foodgrains more than 30 quintals were found in the shop of the accused appellant and by keeping them he has committed technical offence and further more he has argued that Bazra was omitted from the list of foodgrains by the Government of Rajasthan by notification dated 9.12.1994 and thus, today keeping of Bazra even prescribed limit is no offence and further more since it was not the case of the prosecution that the accused appellant was selling these foodgrains in black-marketing, therefore, the accused appellant should be released on probation. 7. I have heard both. 8. Since findings of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu against the accused appellant for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Clause 3 of the Order of 1980 vide his judgment dated 25.4.1989 have not been challenged, therefore, they are liable to be confirmed and the appeal of the accused appellant against his conviction is liable to be dismissed. 9. Looking to the fact that in the present case the incident occurred on 28.12.1985 and more than 15 years have elapsed and this period is enough to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically it would be in the interest of justice that the accused appellant should be released on probation and it would not be proper now to send the accused appellant to Jail after such a long time. 10. 10. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons the appeal of the accused appellant Mangi Lal is partly allowed in the following manner: (i) The conviction of accused appellant Mangi Lal for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Clause 3 of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 is maintained and the appeal against his conviction is dismissed. (ii) However, sentence awarded to the accused appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu vide order dated 25.4.1989 is set aside and instead of sentencing the accused appellant for the aforesaid offence, I direct that he be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- only with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu within a period of three months from today and to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. (iii) I further direct that accused appellant shall also pay cost of prosecution to the tune of Rs. 2000/-. For depositing the said cost in trial Court, the accused appellant is granted 3 months' time from today. Appeal Partly allowed. *******