Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1230 (RAJ)

Vishwanath v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-09

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The accused appellant Vishwanath has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.7.1990 of the Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Case No. 1/1985 whereby he has been convicted under 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act to suffer sentence of three, months Rl and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine fifteen days simple imprisonment. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act but he has only requested that the occurrence took place on 8.8.1985 which is 27 years ago and the accused appellant is having family and he belongs to a respectable family, hence he should be released on probation. He has placed reliance on Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan SB Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1988, decided on 29.3.2013 , wherein this court on the basis of the ruling of the Apex Court in Harivallabha and another v. State of M.P., 2005(10) SCC 330 , In Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan this Court while giving the benefit of section 360 Cr.PC. given the benefit of probation to the accused petitioner in a matter of 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The learned public prosecutor opposed the same. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is an admitted fact that the accused appellant faced the trial and appeal period almost 27 years and he belongs to a respectable family and having his family and children. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and particularly the age of the accused appellant and already faced the trial and appeal period for the last 27 years, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met in case the accused appellant is given the benefit of section 360 Cr.PC. and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is maintained, but sentence of imprisonment awarded against him is set aside and it is hereby directed that if he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is maintained, but sentence of imprisonment awarded against him is set aside and it is hereby directed that if he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial with stipulation to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so within a period of one year and in the meanwhile to keep peace and be of good behaviour, the accused should be released. The bonds should be furnished within two months, failing which the trial court shall take steps that the accused is called upon to undergo the sentence awarded.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******