Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 95 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Arun Kumar

2005-01-19

VIRENDER SINGH

body2005
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Arun Kumar respondent was booked in a case FIR No. 4 dated 11.1.1991 registered at police station City Moga under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for allegedly violating the provisions of Punjab Food Grains Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1978 for keeping in his possession 53 quintals 30 kilograms of maize in excess of the permissible limit. He was charged under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, punishable under Section 7 of the Act. The respondent stands acquitted by the impugned judgment of learned Special Judge, Faridkot dated 28.4.1994. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Punjab has come up in appeal before this Court. 2. I have heard Ms. Poonam Joshan, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. T.S. Sangha, learned counsel for the respondent. With their assistance I have gone through the entire record. 3. The learned State counsel contends that the prosecution has been able to establish its charge against the respondent as conscious possession over maize in excessive quantity to the permissible limit has been proved. Dwelling upon her arguments, she contends that the godown in question where the maize was kept, was in occupation of the respondent, but the said fact has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. In this regard, Ms. Joshan has drawn my attention to the statements of PW-1 Rajpal Singh and PW-5 B.S. Hundal on the basis of which identity of the godown stands fully established. She further contends that so far as violation of the Act is concerned, there cannot be any dispute in the instant case as the maize was certainly in excessive quantity of the permissible limit and that the respondent has earned acquittal mainly on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to prove that the godown or the food grains in question belonged to the respondent. 4. Relying heavily on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and as such the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be disturbed. 5. Repudiating the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, Mr. 4. Relying heavily on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and as such the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be disturbed. 5. Repudiating the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Sangha contends that the prosecution has not been able to establish the conscious possession of the respondent over the food grains or even on the godown; that there are other infirmities as well, which were taken into account by the trial Court while doubting the prosecution version. Mr. Sangha in this way supports the impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. Mr. Sangha in the alternative submits that in the event of disturbing the order of acquittal, the respondent instead of being sentenced substantively for the charge, may be released on probation for the reasons that he has already faced the ordeal of protracted trial for long 14 years; that during interregum he has not indulged in any criminal activity; that he is not a previous convict; that he was of the age of 35 years at the time of alleged occurrence and that sending him to jail once again at this juncture would adversely affect his entire family which is well settled by now. 7. After hearing the rival submissions of both sides and carefully scrutinizing the entire evidence, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment of acquittal is not sustainable. 8. PW-1 Rajpal Singh, Inspector Food & Supplies has categorically stated that on 11.1.1991 he along with other officials went to the food grain godown of the respondent; that the said godown belonged to one PW-3 Manmohanjit Singh and the respondent had taken it on rent; that said Manmohanjit Singh was called there and on enquiry, it revealed that he had rented out the godown to the respondent, though he was not possessing any rent note in this regard. Admittedly, the recovery has been effected from the said godown. 9. Another official witness PW-5 Bakhshish Singh Hundal, DFSO in the office of Director, Food & Supplies has categorically stated that he along with PW-1 Rajpal Singh and another official has visited the spot from where the recovery of maize was effected. 10. PW-3 Manmohanjit Singh is owner of the godown from where the recovery was allegedly effected. 9. Another official witness PW-5 Bakhshish Singh Hundal, DFSO in the office of Director, Food & Supplies has categorically stated that he along with PW-1 Rajpal Singh and another official has visited the spot from where the recovery of maize was effected. 10. PW-3 Manmohanjit Singh is owner of the godown from where the recovery was allegedly effected. No doubt, this witness has not supported the prosecution version and has deposed that he had not rented out the godown to the respondent, yet this fact by itself would not demolish the prosecution case as the identity of the godown from where the recovery was effected is established from the statements of PW-1 Rajpal Singh and PW-5 Bakhshish Singh Hundal. Nothing material helping the respondent could be extracted out of the gruelling cross-examination of these two witnesses. 11. I have also perused the investigation conducted by PW-4 ASI Bakhataur Singh. In my considered view, the prosecution has been able to establish its charge against the respondent beyond any reasonable doubt to the effect that he on 11.1.1991 was found in possession of 53 Quintals 30 kgs of maize in excess of the permissible limit without any licence, in violation of the provisions of Punjab Food Grains Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1978 issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, punishable under Section 7 of the said Act. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment of acquittal is hereby set-aside and the respondent is hereby convicted for the charge framed against him. 13. So far as question of quantum of sentence is concerned, I find force in the submissions made by Mr. Sangha. Admittedly, the case relates to the year 1991. Taking into consideration the agony of protracted trial suffered by him since then as also the fact that he is not a previous convict, the ends of justice would be adequately met if he is directed to be released on probation, instead of being awarded substantive sentence. My view is fortified by the decisions rendered by this Court in Niranjan and another v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069; Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 652; Paramjit and another v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 186-SB of 1996 decided on 10.9.2003 and Satinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 283-SB of 1991, decided on 24.9.2003. 14. 14. Accordingly, convicting the respondent for the charge framed against him, it is directed that he shall be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount, undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. However, this period of probation would be without supervision of the Probation Officer. The requisite bonds shall be furnished before the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which the respondent shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default thereof to suffer further RI for six months. He is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000 (five thousand) as costs of proceedings at the time of furnishing the requisite bonds before the concerned trial Court. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove. Intimation of this judgment be sent to the trial Court forthwith.