Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 430 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2001-03-16

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 4th March, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Addl. Sessions Judge), Barmer in Sessions Case No. 7/97 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'EC Act') and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days SI. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : PW. 1 Jaskaran, Enforcement Officer lodged a report Ex. R 17 before the Police Station, Ramsar District Barmer on 2.1.1997 stating that the accused appellant was authorised dealer for running fair price shop at village Pandhi Ka Par. It is further stated in the report that this fair price shop was inspected by him on 5.12.1996 and on inspection, he found the following irregularities: 1. That accused appellant was carrying the business at a place other than the authorised by the District Supply Officer and thus, by doing so, accused appellant has violated condition No. 1 of Order 6 of the Rajasthan Food Grains and Essential Articles Regulation of Distribution Order, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order of 1976'). 2. That wheats were being sold by the accused appellant at higher rate than the prescribed rate and thus, in doing so the accused appellant has violated the condition No. 3. 3. That on 5.12.1996, the shop of the accused appellant was found closed and there was no mention of the price and stock on the Board and thus, the accused appellant violated conditions No. 8 and 9. 4. That there has been violation of condition No. 17(C) of the License in the manner that wheat 140 kg. was found, though as per the stock register, it should have been 95 kg. and thus, 45 kg. wheat was found in excess and similarly, 21.900 grms. sugar must have been found as per stock, but it was not found. Thus, the accused appellant has violated condition No. 17(C) of the License Ex. P. 2. 3. On this report, the police registered the case FIR No. 2/97 for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act and started investigation. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan in the Court. 4. Thus, the accused appellant has violated condition No. 17(C) of the License Ex. P. 2. 3. On this report, the police registered the case FIR No. 2/97 for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act and started investigation. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan in the Court. 4. On 20.8.1997, the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Addl. Sessions Judge), Barmer framed charges for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act for violation of the above conditions. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During trial, as many as 17 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. However, no evidence in defence was produced by the accused appellant. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Additional Sessions Judge), Barmer vide his judgment and order dated 4th March, 1998 came to the conclusion that irregularities No. 1 to 3 were not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant, but the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that irregularity no. 4 was committed by the accused-appellant and therefore, he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act and sentenced in the manner as indicated above. 7. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 4th March, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Addl. Sessions Judge), Barmer, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. 8. The learned counsel for the accused appellant during the course of arguments has not assailed the findings of conviction recorded against the accused appellant by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Addl. Sessions Judge), Barmer through his judgment dated 4th March, 1998. However, he has submitted that looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the accused appellant may be released on probation while maintaining conviction. 9. Since the findings of conviction recorded against the accused appellant by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Addl. Sessions Judge), Barmer through his judgment dated 4th March, 1998. However, he has submitted that looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the accused appellant may be released on probation while maintaining conviction. 9. Since the findings of conviction recorded against the accused appellant by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Addl. Sessions Judge), Barmer through his judgment dated 4.3.1998 have not been challenged by the learned counsel for the accused appellant, therefore, they are liable to be confirmed and his appeal against conviction under section 3/7 of the EC Act is liable to be dismissed. 10. So far as the question whether benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended in a case under section 3/7 of the EC Act or not, for that following authorities of this Court may be referred to : (1) Jamna Dass v. State of Rajasthan (1988 WLN (UC) 43) (2) Debu Ram v. Sate (1994 RCC 381) (3) Rameshwar Prasad Gupta v. State of Raj. (1993(3) WLC (Raj.) 741) 11. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that only in stock 45 Kg. wheat was found in excess and 21.900 grms. sugar was not found in stock, this weight cannot be said to be a substantial weight and therefore, this is a fit case for grant of benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused appellant while maintaining his conviction. 12. In the results : 1. The appeal of the accused appellant Shanker Lal against his conviction under section 3/7 of the EC Act is dismissed, after confirming the judgment dated 4th March, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Addl. Sessions Judge), Barmer. 2. However, while setting aside the order of sentence dated 4.3.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Addl. Sessions Judge), Barmer for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act, I would direct that accused appellant Shanker Lal 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. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Addl. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Addl. Sessions Judge), Barmer within a period of two months from today to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. 3. It is further directed that accused appellant shall deposit Rs. 1,000/-(Rs. one thousand only) as cost of the prosecution before the learned trial court and for depositing the said amount, two months' time is granted. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******