Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2255 (RAJ)

Chaggan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-07-18

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2006
Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (District and Sessions Judge), Sri Ganganagar in Essential Commodities Case No. 1/86 by which learned trial Judge convicted the appellant under Section 3 read with 7(A) (ii) and awarded six months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of fine further imprisonment of three months. 2. As per facts of the case, the appellant was found in possession of 1050 liters of diesel in the floor mill at the time of search on 111.1985 at about 12.20 PM. A case was registered against him and after regular trial, the prosecution has proved his case and learned trial Court came to the conclusion after scrutiny of the evidence led by prosecution that appellant has committed offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and he has committed violation of Rajasthan Petroleum Product (License and Control) Order, 1979 and he has stored 1050 liters diesel for the purpose of sale. For proving the case before the learned trial Court, the prosecution has produced 14 witnesses and thereafter statement under Section 313, CrPC was recorded and in defence two witnesses were examined from the side of defence. The learned Counsel for the appellant frankly stated that at the time of occurrence the appellant was 21 years of age and this appeal is pending since 1988 for near about 18 years have passed so also the occurrence took place in the year 1985, therefore, appellant may be given the benefit of probation. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards the decision of this Court reported in RCC, July, 1994 Pg. 381, Debu Ram vs. State, decided on 11.04.1994 in which the learned Single Judge of this Court released the accused-petitioner in that case on probation who was punished under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act for a period of one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 381, Debu Ram vs. State, decided on 11.04.1994 in which the learned Single Judge of this Court released the accused-petitioner in that case on probation who was punished under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act for a period of one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-on the ground that petitioner in that case was 20 years of age when the alleged offence was committed and no reason whatsoever was assigned by the trial Court for not granting the benefit of probation to the accused in that case and prayed that in the present case also, though a prayer was made to the trial Court that appellant is a poor villager and at the time of occurrence, he was less than 21 years of age and at the time of arrest in the arrest memo his age was mentioned as 20 years but without any cogent reason, the learned trial Court refused to grant benefit of probation. It is further contended that in the present case, the appellant has been punished for 6 months R.I. alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 three months additional R.I. whereas in that case punishment was for one year R.I. alongwith 1,000/-fine even if this Court has granted benefit of probation, therefore, the appellant may also be given the benefit of probation and the finding of refusal for granting benefit of probation and the Judgment impugned may be set aside and appellant may be released on probation. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer so made and contended that the learned trial Court has rightly refused benefit of probation to the appellant. 5. I have perused the Judgment cited by learned Counsel for the appellant and record of the case so also scrutinies and re appreciated the evidence on record. 6. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer so made and contended that the learned trial Court has rightly refused benefit of probation to the appellant. 5. I have perused the Judgment cited by learned Counsel for the appellant and record of the case so also scrutinies and re appreciated the evidence on record. 6. I find that the learned trial Court has not committed any error while holding the appellant guilty of offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act but the fact remains that appellant was living in village and was having floor mill as per the prosecution case and occurrence took place on 111.1985, on that date as per recovery memo, he was less than 21 years of age and near about 21 years have passed and appellant is on bail also and no other case is reported by the Public Prosecutor after this case so also the reason does not believing the age of the petitioner less than 21 years by the learned trial Court is also not supported by any evidence. Moreso, the prosecution while filling challan produced arrest memo in which the age of the appellant is less than 21 years and that document was treated to be proved in the trial Court, therefore, the reason for reusing to accept the age of the appellant less than 21 years by the learned trial Court for the purpose of granting benefit of probation is not correct, therefore, I accordingly, partly accept the appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Judgment rendered by the trial Court is modified to the extent of sentence and while following the Judgment in Debu Ram (Supra), the appellant shall be released on probation of good conduct provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act and Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar for keeping peace and to be of good behavior for a period of two years and to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so within the aforesaid period. However, the appellant shall pay Rs. 5,000/-as cost of prosecution and deposit the same with trial Court within a period of three months from today. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.