Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 112 (PNJ)

Darshan Lal v. State of Punjab

2003-01-22

R.L.ANAND

body2003
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment dated 17.8.1989 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who affirmed the judgment and order dated 19.11.1988 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, who convicted and sentenced the petitioner, Darshan Lal, under Section 37 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. A criminal complaint was filed by the Market Committee against Messrs Des Raj Darshan Lal, Bhunerheri, through its proprietor Shri Darshan Lal petitioner on the allegations that petitioner Shri Darshan Lal brings stock of food-grains and exhibit the same for sale at his shop without any licence or permit obtained from the Market Committee under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and, thereby he allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 37 of the Act. After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned by the learned trial Magistrate. When he appeared, he pleaded not guilty to the allegations and claimed a trial. 3. In order to prove the offence the Market Committee produced Shri Bal Krishan Gupta (PW1) who has supported the contents of the complaint. He also proved Ex.P1 - the copy of the resolution passed by the Market Committee. The prosecution also examined PW2 Sucha Singh and proved Ex.P.2 - the notice served upon the petitioner and report Ex.P.3, besides Shri Rakesh Kumar Supervisor who appeared as PW3. 4. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. He denied those circumstances and took the plea that his father was running a shop of bangles and this shop does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee. When called upon to enter his defence, the petitioner examined Kaka Singh as DW1 who deposed that Darshan Lal petitioner, in fact, was plying a Tonga and he was not running any shop as alleged by the complainant. 5. The learned trial Judicial Magistrate relying upon the statements of the prosecution convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo RI for seven days. 5. The learned trial Judicial Magistrate relying upon the statements of the prosecution convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo RI for seven days. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Still not satisfied with the order of the Courts below, the present appeal. 6. I have heard Ms. G.S. Hundal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri M.C. Berry, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab and with their assistance, have gone through the record of the case. 7. Though I am dealing with a revision but if I come to this conclusion that the learned trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has committed a patent illegality in convicting and passing the order of sentence against the petitioner, such order can be interfered with by this Court when there is a patent illegality on the face of the impugned order. It is the case of the complainant that Shri Darshan Lal was running a shop and he used to bring food-grains for the purpose of sale without any licence or permit. In these circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to produce some corroborative evidence in the shape of any neighbour from the locality to establish that Darshan Lal was, in fact, running a shop and that he used to bring the food-grains for the purpose of sale without any licence or permit. No witness has been examined by the prosecution to suggest that Darshan Lal and brought food grains from a particular trader. No documentary evidence has been produced with regard to the alleged sale of the food grains by the petitioner. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, both the courts should not have convicted and sentenced the petitioner. There is a patent illegality in the present case. Therefore, I allow this revision, set aside the impugned judgments and acquit the petitioner of the allegations. The amount of fine, if realised, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Revision allowed.