Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1470 (PNJ)

Subash Chand v. State of Punjab

2003-10-22

NIRMAL SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This judgment of mine shall dispose of three appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 466-SB of 1996, 467-SB of 1996 and 468-SB of 1996 as all the three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 3.7.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Rup Nagar vide which the appellants have been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called the Act) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 months and to pay of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.8.1991 Assistant Food & Supplies Officer Kuldip Singh checked the shops of the appellants. It was found that the appellants have not displaced rate lists at their shops and have violated the provisions of Punjab Commodities Prices Marketing & Display Order of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Order). A complaint under Section 7 of the Act was registered. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the Special Court, Rupnagar. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined M.R. Sharma, District Food and Supplies Officers as PW-1, Kuldip Singh, Assistant Food & Supplies Officer as PW-2, Charan Singh Sub Inspector as PW-3, Harjit Singh Clerk as PW-4 and M.B. Singh, Retired Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kharar as PW-5. 4. When the appellants were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, they denied simplicitor and pleaded false implication. The appellants were called to lead evidence in their defence. They have examined Rattan Singh as DW-1, and Sucha Singh as DW-2. They both stated in their defence evidence that they had seen the rate lists placed at their shops. 5. After perusing the evidence on record, the learned Judge, Special Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph-1 of the judgment, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Shri Bipan Ghai and Shri R.S. Sihota, learned counsel for the petitioners have not challenged the conviction of the appellants on merit. They submitted that the appellants have not been prosecuted on the ground that they had made any alteration in the sweets which they were selling. The only allegation against the appellants is that they have not displayed the price list at their shops in respect of Laddu, Gulab Jamun and Burfi. They submitted that the appellants have not been prosecuted on the ground that they had made any alteration in the sweets which they were selling. The only allegation against the appellants is that they have not displayed the price list at their shops in respect of Laddu, Gulab Jamun and Burfi. He submitted that the appellants are small shop keepers and have suffered both mentally and financially since the registration of the case. He submitted that the appellants may be released on probation. 7. Shri H.S. Garewal, learned DAG, Punjab has not opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants. Under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Act, for which the appellants have been convicted the minimum sentence prescribed is three months but there is no bar in allowing probation where the minimum sentence has been prescribed as it has been laid down in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, PLR 1980 196, Niranjan & another v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069. 8. This Court in Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR(Criminal) 563 has ordered the release of the accused where he was convicted under Section 7 of the Act. Furthermore the appellants are facing trial since 1991. They have suffered both mentally and financially for more than 12 years. The appellants are not previous convicts. There is nothing on the record to show that before and after the registration of this case, the appellants have indulged in any other criminal activity. Furthermore, the offence for which the appellants have been convicted is not serious. The modern trend of penology is reformatory, therefore, I give one more chance to the appellants to re- habilitate themselves and to be a good citizen. 9. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants is maintained. However, their sentence is suspended subject to appellants furnishing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each within one month on receipt of copy of the order. The appellants are directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to receive sentence as and when called upon. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.