Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1394 (PNJ)

Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana

2008-08-18

K.C.PURI

body2008
JUDGMENT K.C. Puri, J.:-Vijay Singh, appellant was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by Shri B.L. Singal, the then Special Court under EC Act, Hisar vide judgment dated 24.7.1998 and vide separate order dated 25.7.1998, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The assortment of facts is that on 21.8.1995, SI Wajir Singh along with other police officials was on patrol duty and was present near Sheetal Hotel in the area of Agroha. He received secret information against the accused to the effect that he was indulging in the sale of spurious diesel without any permit or licence in his tubewell Kotha and sufficient quantity of such diesel can be recovered if a immediate raid is conducted. Consequently, believing the said information as true, an effort was made to join independent witness but to no effect. Constable Roop Chand was asked to go to the accused in civil dress for purchasing diesel for Rs.50/-. Constable Roop Chand purchased diesel from the accused for Rs.50/- and came back to SI Wajir Singh who was waiting near Sheetal Hotel. The can in which purchased diesel was put was produced before the Investigating Officer who took out a sample in one bottle. The sample and the remaining bulk were sealed in separate parcels with seal “WSS” and the seal, after use, was handed over to Roop Chand. Then the spot was raided. A Photographer was called to the spot and the photographs of the drums etc. were taken. The accused was found present in the tubewell Kotha. Two drums of the capacity of 200 litres each, five jerrycans of the capacity of 50 litres containing diesel were recovered. One of the jerrycans was having about 40 litres. The accused could not produce any permit or licence. 3. Investigation in the case was conducted and after completion of the same, the accused was challaned. 4. Notice under Section 7 of the Act was served on the accused on 4.12.1996 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. One of the jerrycans was having about 40 litres. The accused could not produce any permit or licence. 3. Investigation in the case was conducted and after completion of the same, the accused was challaned. 4. Notice under Section 7 of the Act was served on the accused on 4.12.1996 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined PW-1 HC Ram Pal, PW-2 Constable Vijay Pal, PW-3 Krishan Kumar, PW-4 Constable Miyan Singh, PW-5 HC Roop Chand and PW-6 SI Wajir Singh. 6. After the close of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded innocence. He took up the plea that he was falsely arrested in this case. It was also stated by him that the jeep of the police was short of diesel and the driver of the jeep requested him to give some diesel but he refused and after some altercation, he was involved in this case falsely by the police after adding kerosene in the diesel lying there. 7. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the accused but has argued on the quantum of sentence. It has been submitted that according to the case of the prosecution, 640 litres of spurious diesel was found from the custody of the accused for the purposes of sale. However, the learned trial Court, after appraisal of evidence, concluded that diesel was not spurious and according to the report of Chemical Examiner, the sample of diesel confirmed to the critical test of ISI specifications of diesel. The occurrence relates to 13 years back. So, the appellant is entitled to the concession of Probation. 9. The learned State has opposed the prayer. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and have gone through the record of the case. 11. Since this is first appeal, so I have re-appraised the evidence. The offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act stands proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such his conviction stands confirmed. 12. Now, the question arises whether the accused is entitled to the concession of Probation. 11. Since this is first appeal, so I have re-appraised the evidence. The offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act stands proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such his conviction stands confirmed. 12. Now, the question arises whether the accused is entitled to the concession of Probation. According to the case of the prosecution, seven samples were drawn from the premises of the accused, whereas one sample was drawn from the diesel alleged to have been purchased from the accused. The learned trial Court, in the impugned judgment, has held that since seven samples drawn from the premises confirmed to the standard of diesel by ISI specification and one sample which was drawn from the diesel alleged to have been purchased from the accused was defective and, on that count, the allegations of spurious diesel are not proved on the file. However, keeping in view the quantity of diesel, he has been convicted. The offence relates to the year 1995. It is stated at the Bar that he remained in custody for about two months during the trial. So, taking into consideration the entire circumstances and in view of authorities in cases Nathu Ram Versus State of Punjab, 1990(1) R.C.R (Criminal ) 18; Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana, 2004(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 775; Shiv Parshad Versus State of Haryana, 1997(4) R.C.R (Criminal) 117; M/s. Maya Ram and Sons Versus State of Haryana, 2003(3) Cr.C.C.544; Satinder Singh Versus Punjab State, 2004(3) Crl.C.C.675; Hanuman Versus State of Haryana, [2007(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1521] : 2007(3) R.C.R (Criminal0 488; Silak Ram Versus Haryana State, 2005(2) R. C. R (Criminal) 843 and Jagdish Rai Jain Versus State of Punjab, 1988(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 470, the sentence of the accused is modified and he is ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, for a period of one year, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- by the trial Court. However, the accused is ordered to deposit Rs.15,000/- in the trial Court as cost of litigation. The accused has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- by the trial Court. However, the accused is ordered to deposit Rs.15,000/- in the trial Court as cost of litigation. The amount of Rs.1,000/- already paid by the accused is ordered to be treated as cost of litigation and the appellant shall be entitled to have adjustment of that amount out of Rs.15,000/-. The said amount is ordered to be paid within two months from today failing which the sentence awarded by the trial Court shall revive. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. -------------------