Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1392 (PNJ)

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana

2003-10-08

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Dharampal appellant herein has been convicted by learned Special Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 18.9.1996/20.9.96 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with clause 9(1) of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality Order, 1977 and clauses 3 and 4 of the Haryana Commodities Price Marketing and Display Order, 1975 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine of further undergo RI for six months. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is that SI Mahender Singh, who was posted as Incharge of Police Post, Dinod Gate, Bhiwani received a secret information against the appellant to the effect that he was keeping kerosene oil to the extent of large quantity. A raid was conducted with the officials of the Food & Civil Supplies department on the shop of the appellant on 28.6.1994 and kerosene to the extent of 760 litres was found in possession of the appellant whereas his relevant record in this connection was showing nil stock. Since the appellant could not furnish any explanation for it, he was booked in the present case. After completion of the entire investigation, the appellant was challaned to face trial. On appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Judge, Special Court, has convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. R.S. Kundu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Geeta Mathuria, learned Assistant Advocate General, representing the State of Haryana. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire records of the case. 4. Mr. Kundu does not assail the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and instead prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence. In support of his arguments, it has been submitted that the present case relates to the year 1994 and by now the appellant has already faced the rigour of protracted trial of about 9 years and as such he deserves a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon two judgments of this Court rendered in Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 652 and Niranjan & anr. v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069 and prayed for the benefit of probation. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon two judgments of this Court rendered in Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 652 and Niranjan & anr. v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069 and prayed for the benefit of probation. On the other hand Ms. Mathuria vehemently contends that the appellant does not deserve any leniency as he was found in possession of large quantity of kerosene oil without any record and the sentence as awarded by the trial court deserves to be maintained. 5. So far as the merits of the case of concerned, although the learned counsel has not assailed the conviction of the appellant on merits, yet I have scanned the entire evidence minutely and do not find any infirmity in this regard. Conviction of the appellant is, thus, maintained. 6. On quantum of sentence I find that there is substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the present case relates to the year 1994. He has already suffered the agony of protracted trial of about 9 years. The judgments rendered in Sant Lals case and Niranjan & anothers case (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as well. 7. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant is ordered to be released on probation instead of awarding substantive sentence. Accordingly, upholding the conviction of the appellant for the charge framed against him it is directed that he shall be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety 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. It is however made clear that releasing of the appellant 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 appellant shall undergo the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial court. It is however made clear that releasing of the appellant 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 appellant shall undergo the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial court. With the modification in the quantum of sentence, as referred to above, the present appeal is dismissed. Let intimation of this judgment be sent to the trial court. Appeal dismissed.