Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 805 (PNJ)

Hanuman v. State Of Haryana

2007-04-04

T.P.S.MANN

body2007
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The appellant was running a firm M/s Radheysham Mukesh Kumar as its sole proprietor at Hisar. The firm used to deal in the sale and purchase of paddy. District Food and Civil Supply Controller, Karnal learnt about the purchase of paddy by the appellant from various firms of Matlodha, which fell within his jurisdiction. Accordingly, he sought an information from his counter part at Hisar to find out as to whether the appellant, as sole proprietor of the firm, had entered about the sale and purchase of said paddy in its account. Upon this, Singh Ram Dahiya PW 7, who was posted as Inspector, Food and Civil Supply, Hisar in the office of DFSC, Hisar rushed to the shop of the appellant situated in Grain Market, Hisar. He learnt that the appellant was having licence No. 2555 issued to him under the Orders of Food and Civil Supply Department. It was then revealed that the appellant had shifted the place of his business from his shop, i.e. Shop No. 181 to some other place without seeking prior permission from the Food and Civil Supply Department, Haryana. It also transpired that the appellant failed to send the return of purchase and sale of the paddy for the years 1987 and 1988. The aforementioned acts done by the appellant resulted in contravention of the provisions of clauses 4(ii), 11 and 14 of the Haryana Food Articles (Licensing and Price Control) Order, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the Order, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Accordingly, FIR No. 264 dated 19.7.1989 was registered at Police Station City, Hisar by Inspector Ishwar Singh after receiving detailed report Ex.PQ from Inspector Singh Ram Dahiya PW7. 2. During the investigation of the case, the appellant was arrested on 16.9.1989. Necessary relevant records, including forms ST 15, bills and receipts, whereby the paddy in huge quantity was purchased by the appellant, were also taken into possession. Further investigation was conducted by ASI Davinder Singh, who recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After the completion of the investigation, challan dated 15.1.1990 was submitted by Inspector Ishwar Singh, SHO, Police Station City, Hisar against the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. Further investigation was conducted by ASI Davinder Singh, who recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After the completion of the investigation, challan dated 15.1.1990 was submitted by Inspector Ishwar Singh, SHO, Police Station City, Hisar against the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. Upon receipt of the challan, show cause notice was served upon the appellant for contravening various provisions of the Order making the appellant liable for punishment under Section 7 of the Act, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Raj Kumar, Section Officer, PW2 ASI Davender Kumar, PW3 ASI Subhash Chander, PW4 Parmod Kumar, PW5 Purshotam Dass, PW6 Parma Nand, PW7 Inspector Singh Ram Dahiya, PW8 SI Jasrath Singh, PW9 Ram Niwas, PW10 Ram Chander, PW11 Rajender Parshad, PW12, Jai Kishan Das and PW 13 Parmod Kumar. 3. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. In reply to question No. 16, he submitted as follows :- "I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. Witnesses have deposed falsely just to shield themselves and shift their liability upon me. I closed my business and gave intimation to this effect to the Sales Tax department and also did not get my Sales Tax licence renewed after April, 1989 and as such thereafter I did not run any business." 4. In defence, the accused examined DW1 S.S. Gulia and DW2 Partap Chand. 5. The trial Court, after going through the evidence led on the file, came to a conclusion that the prosecution was successful in establishing that the accused contravened the provisions of clause 14 of the Order punishable under Section 7 of the Act. The contravention of the provisions of Clauses 4(ii) and 11 of the Order were found to have been not proved by the prosecution. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 7.11.1994, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Act and on the following day, i.e. 8.11.1994, sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the said offence. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for three months. Hence, the present appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their able assistance. 1,000/- for the said offence. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for three months. Hence, the present appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their able assistance. 7. The plea of the appellant was that he had closed his business and did not transact any business after April, 1989. However, the application Ex.R1 dated 5.6.1988 moved in that regard was not proved to have been received in the office of Excise and Taxation Department, Hisar. No entry was found to have been made in the receipt register. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellant was not dealing in the sale and purchase of paddy in the year 1988 as well as 1989. From the testimonies of PW4 Parmod Kumar, PW5 Purshotam Dass, PW6 Parma Nand, PW9 Ram Niwas, PW10 Ram Chander, PW11 Rajinder Parshad, PW12 Jai Kishan Das and PW13 Parmod Kumar, the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant had purchased huge quantity of paddy from various firms in the month of January and February, 1988 after handing over form ST 15 without paying any sales tax. The accused never sent any return regarding the purchase of paddy. Thus, the accused violated the provisions of Clause 14 of the Haryana Food Articles (Licencing and Price Control) Order, 1985 for which he was required to face punishment under Section 7 of the Act. Nothing substantial has surfaced on the record from which it can be shown that the appellant has not committed the offence alleged against him. Statements made by the prosecution witnesses are found to be sufficient to return a finding of guilt against the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be seen that the FIR was registered in the year 1989. The appellant is not shown to be a previous convict. He has already suffered agony of protracted trial for about 18 years. The modern trend of penology is reformatory. Such like person as the appellant deserves to be given chance to rehabilitate himself and be a useful citizen of the country. 8. The appellant is not shown to be a previous convict. He has already suffered agony of protracted trial for about 18 years. The modern trend of penology is reformatory. Such like person as the appellant deserves to be given chance to rehabilitate himself and be a useful citizen of the country. 8. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant is ordered to be released on probation instead of serving the substantive sentence imposed upon him. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is maintained. The appellant shall be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar 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 of aside one year. The fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the appellant is consequently set aside. Instead, the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation. If the appellant has already deposited the sum of Rs. 1,000/-, which was imposed upon him by the trial Court as fine, the same shall be adjusted while realising the amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the costs of litigation. Except for the modification on the point of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal fails and is dismissed.