Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2129 (PNJ)

Jawahar Lal v. State Of Punjab

2010-07-27

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 18.12.2001 whereby the learned Special Judge, Sangrur (hereinafter referred as `Trial Court) convicted the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution as projected in paras 1 and 2 of the trial Court judgment is that : "A raid was conducted in the shop of M/s Parveen Sweets, Sunami Gate, Sangrur by forming a party comprising of Nishan Singh, District Food and Supplies Officer (DFSO), Sangrur alongwith Bhupinderjit Singh, Tehsildar, Sh. R.S. Madan, Inspector of Food and Supply, HC Shingara Singh and three other police officials from police station City Sangrur on 21.1.91 at about 2.30 p.m. for detecting the illegal use of Light Petrol Gas (LPG) cylinders/connections. Jawahar Lal accused, the proprietor of the business concern, was present in the shop. This party found a gas cylinder being used in the shop by means of an unauthorized Regulator. The gas cylinder was bearing serial No. 47322 of Bharat Petroleum Company (B.P.C.). The cylinder, at that time, was filled to its half capacity when it was recovered. The accused could not produce any document of the gas cylinder. In fact, this was the cylinder meant for the domestic use but the accused was putting it to commercial use. Thus, the accused violated the provisions of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 (in short to be referred hereinafter as "the Order"), and thus, committed the offence punishable u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The gas cylinder and the regulator were handed over to the police officials who were present in the raiding party. The report Ex. PC with regard to this raid was made to the Station House Officer of police station and the FIR Ex. PC/1 on the basis of which was registered. The recovery memo by the party headed by the District Food and Supplies Officer Ex. PB was also prepared. The case property was taken into possession by SI Kamal Dev, SHO of Police Station Sangrur vide memo Ex. PC/1 on the basis of which was registered. The recovery memo by the party headed by the District Food and Supplies Officer Ex. PB was also prepared. The case property was taken into possession by SI Kamal Dev, SHO of Police Station Sangrur vide memo Ex. PF after the registration of the case. The statement of the accused was also recorded by the party headed by the District Food and Supplies Officer, which is Ex. PD in which the accused stated that he obtained the supply of the gas cylinder from the authorized agency under his consumer connection No. 4109 but he had got this cylinder for his domestic use. He also admitted that the regulator with him was unauthorized. During the investigation of the case, the licence of the accused in Form-F, relating to the registration of the shop under the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 and the copy of the consumer connection card were also taken into possession. On completion of the investigation, the challan against the accused was presented before the then Ld.Special Judge, Sangrur." 3. Accused-appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1988 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused-appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, viz., Harjit Kaur, Junior Assistant as PW1, Nishan Singh, DFSC as PW2, Inspector RS Madan as PW3, Head Constable Shingara Singh as PW4, Malkiat Singh, Manager as PW5, S.P. Mehta, Labour Inspector as PW6 and SDM Bhupinderjit Singh as PW7. Joginderpal Singh, Inspector, Harish Kumar, SP and Inspector Budh Singh were given up as unnecessary. 5. Statement of the accused-appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded his false implication. However, he admitted that the gas cylinder was being used by him in the shop, but it was only for the purpose of preparation of food of the employees of his son, in the shop. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed in para No. 1 of this judgment. 7. Hence this appeal. 8. The present appeal was admitted on 5.2.2002 and the sentence of the appellant was also ordered to be suspended. 9. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed in para No. 1 of this judgment. 7. Hence this appeal. 8. The present appeal was admitted on 5.2.2002 and the sentence of the appellant was also ordered to be suspended. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. 10. The learned counsel for the State submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellant since the offence has been proved. 11. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 21.1.1991. Thus, the appellant, by now, have suffered protracted trial for more than 19 years. 12. The Honble Supreme Court in 2006(3) Apex Criminal 493 : 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan v. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another" observed as under :- "26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment" 13. In another case titled as "Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana", 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Honble Supreme Court observed as under :- "After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents. 2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly". 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the reduction of sentence/imprisonment to the extent already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice. 15. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant, as held by the learned Trial Court is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him. The sentence of fine awarded to the appellant is, however, enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court. He shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16. In case, the appellant fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced fine with the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, within the period stipulated above, in that eventuality, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 17. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.