Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 783 (PNJ)

Rajender v. State of Haryana

2004-07-28

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Rajender son of Rati Ram appellant stands convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1975 (for short the Act) vide impugned judgment dated 15.10.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, Bhiwani and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, he has preferred the present appeal. 2. The accusation against the appellant is that he had kept in his conscious possession 178 bags of wheat weighing 169 quintals 61 kgs for sale without obtaining any permit or licence from the State. In short the case of the prosecution is that on 29.5.1992, R.K. Mehra, Assistant Food and Supply Officer in the company of other officers including ASI Satbir Singh had raided the shop of the appellant situated in Sarai Chopta Bhiwani and the aforesaid quantity of wheat was recovered from his shop. Since the appellant had committed the breach of Govt. Notification dated 22.11.1985 prohibiting the storage of wheat beyond 25 quintals, he was charged under Section 7 of the Act read with Section 3 of the Haryana Food Articles (Licensing and Price Control) Order, 1985. 3. I have heard Mr. D.V. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sh. Bijender Dhankar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. With their assistance, I have also gone through the records of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant does not join any issue on merits and without assailing the impugned judgment, at the very outset prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel contends that the present case relates to the year 1992 and by now the appellant has faced the rigor of protracted trial of about 12 years. It is then contended that the appellant is not previous convict and as such he deserves lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel contends that the present case relates to the year 1992 and by now the appellant has faced the rigor of protracted trial of about 12 years. It is then contended that the appellant is not previous convict and as such he deserves lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon two judgments of this Court rendered in Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 652, Niranjan and another v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069 and another judgment of this Court rendered in Satinder Singh v. Punjab State, Criminal Appeal 293-SB of 1991 decided on 24.9.2003, and prays for the benefit of probation. 5. However, the learned State counsel has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and contends that the appellant does not deserve any lenient view so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned as the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant for simple imprisonment of 3 months only and fine of Rs. 500/-. 6. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the impugned judgment, yet I have scanned the entire evidence minutely being first Court of appeal and do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case on any count. While concurring with the findings of the trial Court, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed. 7. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the present case relates to the year 1992. The appellant is not a previous convict. He has already suffered the agony of protracted trial of about 12 years. The judgments rendered in Sant Lals case, Niranjan and anothers case and Satinder Singhs case (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant squarely cover the case of the present appellant. 8. 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 the appellant shall be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. Accordingly, upholding the conviction of the appellant for the charge framed against him it is directed that the appellant 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. 9. 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 two months from today, failing which the appellant shall undergo the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court. 10. The fine of Rs. 500/- already awarded by the learned trial Court is now converted as costs of the proceedings. Over and above that, the appellant shall also be depositing Rs. 1,500/- as costs of proceedings. In case fine of Rs. 500/- already stand deposited by the appellant before the trial Court, the same shall now be adjusted towards the total amount of Rs. 2,000/- as costs. 11. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.