Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 354 (PNJ)

Silak Ram v. Haryana State

2004-03-23

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Silak Ram appellant stands convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) (Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act), Faridabad under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter for short `the Act), vide impugned judgment dated 14.8.1992 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 2. The allegation against the appellant is that he was employed as a Manager of a gas agency known as M/s. Surya Gas Agency near capital bus stand Ballabgarh, which was the distributor of H.P. Liquefied Petroleum Gas in Ballabgarh town. One Anil Kumar son of Shital Prasad Jain had booked a gas connection with the aforesaid agency and later on it was learnt that the said connection had already been issued to one Anil Kumar son of Godhraj. A complaint was made in this regard and after holding an inquiry into the matter by the concerned official of District Food and Supplies Department, Faridabad, it revealed that M/s. Surya Gas Agency had sent an intimation of maturity of gas connection to Anil Kumar under UPC but it was received back unserved and thereafter, on filing of an affidavit by one Anil Kumar son of Godhraj, the connection of LPG was released. The allegations were that the present appellant, who was employed as a Manager had connived with the aforesaid Anil Kumar son of Godhraj and without verifying his address, had released the gas connection. He was consequently challaned and charged under Section 7 of the Act and under Section 420 IPC as well. He is, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, whereas stands convicted under Section 7 of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and confines his arguments with regard to quantum of sentence only submitting that the appellant has already suffered the agony of protracted trial of long 21 years; that he has been convicted for an irregularity committed by him and has been sentenced for three months only and that his case calls for a lenient view. 4. The submissions are opposed by the learned State counsel. 5. 4. The submissions are opposed by the learned State counsel. 5. Though the impugned judgment has not been assailed on merits, yet I have gone through the entire evidence minutely, being first Court of appeal. In my view the judgment of conviction is well justified. I accordingly affirm it. 6. With regard to quantum of sentence, I feel that the appellant deserves a concessional tilt. The occurrence relates to the year 1984. By now, the appellant has already suffered the ordeal of protracted trial. In my view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant is ordered to be released on probation instead of awarding him the substantive sentence. My view is fortified by a latest judgment of this Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 286-SB of 1990, Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 28.5.2003; in which while placing reliance on Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR(Crl.) 563 (P&H) : 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 652 and Niranjan and another v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069 and upholding the conviction of the appellant for the charge under Section 7 of the Act had directed the release of the appellant on probation of good conduct. 7. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellant for the charge framed, I direct that he be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- 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. Further, it is made clear that the bail/surety bond to be furnished by the appellant would be without the supervision of the Probation Officer. The requisite bonds shall be furnished before the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which the appellant shall undergo the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. 8. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed on merits except with the modification on the quantum of sentence as indicated hereinabove.