Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1341 (PNJ)

Satinder Singh v. Punjab State

2003-09-24

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Vide this judgment I shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 283-SB of 1991 (Satinder Singh v. State of Punjab) and Criminal Appeal No. 303-SB of 1991 (Prithvi Raj and another v. State of Punjab), as both are arising out of one and the same judgment passed by learned Special Court Hoshiarpur dated 11.7.1991, vide which the above said appellants have been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and have been sentenced to undergo RI for one and a half years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is that on 4.11.1988, Harjit Singh, Fertilizer Inspector took sample of Super Phosphate 16% fertilizer from the premises of M/s Golden Times, Phagwara Road Hoshiarpur of which Prithvi Raj (appellant in Crl. appeal No. 303-SB of 1991) was the sole Proprietor. Surinder Kumar appellant was allegedly found at the premises at the time of taking sample. Satinder Singh (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 283-SB of 1991) was responsible officer of the manufacturer M/s Munak Chemicals Ltd., Bathinda under clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The sample taken was found to be non-standard after analysis and thus, the above said three appellants were booked in this case for the violation of clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. All the three appellants after the trial have been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge as indicated above. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present two appeals. 3. I have heard learned counsel or the appellants and learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also gone through the records of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants do not assail the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and instead prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence. In support of their arguments, it has been submitted that the present case relates to the year 1988 and by now the appellants have faced the rigor of protracted trial of about 15 years. It is then contended that the appellants are not previous convicts and as such they deserve lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. In support of their arguments, it has been submitted that the present case relates to the year 1988 and by now the appellants have faced the rigor of protracted trial of about 15 years. It is then contended that the appellants are not previous convicts and as such they deserve lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. In support of their arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon two judgments of this Court rendered in Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 652; Niranjan & Anr. v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069 and Paramjit and another v. State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 186-SB of 1996 decided on 10.9.2003 and pray for the benefit of probation. 5. On the other hand the learned State counsel vehemently contends that the appellants do not deserve any leniency and the sentence as awarded by the trial court deserves to be maintained. 6. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, although the learned counsel for the appellants have not assailed the impugned judgment, yet I have scanned the entire evidence minutely and do not find any infirmity in it. I, thus, concur with the findings of the trial court whereby the above said three appellants stand convicted. The same is hereby affirmed. 7. On quantum of sentence I find that there is substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Admittedly, the present case relates to the year 1988. The appellants are not previous convicts. They have already suffered the agony of protracted trial of about 15 years. The judgments rendered in Sant Lals case, (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellants squarely cover the case of the present appellants. 8. I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellants are ordered to be released on probation instead of awarding substantive sentence. Accordingly, upholding the conviction of the appellants for the charge framed against them it is directed that all the three appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. Accordingly, upholding the conviction of the appellants for the charge framed against them it is directed that all the three appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during the said period of one year. 9. It is however made clear that releasing of the appellants on probation would be without the supervision of Probation Officer. The requisite bonds shall be furnished before the trial court within one month after the receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the appellants shall undergo the sentence imposed upon them by the learned trial court. 10. It has been brought to my notice that the fine has already been deposited before the trial court. Sentence of fine shall now be considered as costs of the proceedings. 11. With the modification in the quantum of sentence, as referred to above, the present two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 283-SB of 1991 Satinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Criminal Appeal No. 303-SB of 1991 Prithvi Raj and another v. State of Punjab, are dismissed. Let intimation of this judgment be sent to the trial court. Appeals dismissed.