Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 130 (ALL)

Murli v. State of U. P.

2015-01-19

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. 1. This appeal under Section 3 74(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellant Murli against the judgment and order dated 22.5.1998 passed by Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Crl. Case No. 25/92 (State Vs. Murli) convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 3 /7 Essential Commodities Act for six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine further one month's R.I. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a sample of 'Ramban' brand phosphate was taken on 13.12.1991 from M/S Murli Khad Bhandar, Pihani, district Hardoi by A.K. Srivastava, Sahayak Nibhandhak, Sahkari Samitiyan, Hardoi and the same was sent for analysis and in the result, which was received by letter No. 795 dated 22.1.92 of Meerut, Fertilizer Analysist, Laboratory, total phosphate percentage of the sample was found 13.96 against standard percentage of 16, as such, the sample of phosphate was below standard, considering this fact, it was found that contravention of Urvarak Niyantran Aadesh, 1985 (Fertilizer Control Order, 1985) had taken place and the offence under Section 3 /7 E.C. Act has been committed. 3. A complaint against, Ext. Ka-2, vide Patra Sankhya 3159/Krashi/Char/Vya.U.V./1991-92 dated 4.2.92 was sent by Suresh Singh, District Agriculture Officer, Hardoi to S.O., Pihani and on the allegations made in this letter, chick report, Ext. Ka4 was prepared regarding the occurrence which had taken place on 13.12.91 of taking sample in form No. (J), Ext. Ka-3 and the case was registered on 11.2.92 at 18.10 hours vide crime No. 26/92 under Section3/7 E.C. Act against appellant Murli, s/o Saligram. Carbon copy of G.D. of registration of the case, Ext. Ka-5 is available on record. Sanction for prosecution was given by Sri M.P. Jain, the then District Magistrate, Hardoi on 18.6.92 against appellant Murli in crime No. 26/92 under Section 3 /7 E.C. Act, which is Ext. Ka-6. Finally, charge sheet has been submitted on 26.6.92 against appellant Murli. 4. Statement of accused-appellant Murli was recorded on 12.10.1993. The appellant stated that sample was taken from his shop in his absence and he did not know that it was substandard or not and further states that the fertilizer from which the sample taken was purchased by him from M/S Kumar Fertilizers, Shahabad and was sold in the same condition. 5. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 complainant on 3.12.93. The appellant stated that sample was taken from his shop in his absence and he did not know that it was substandard or not and further states that the fertilizer from which the sample taken was purchased by him from M/S Kumar Fertilizers, Shahabad and was sold in the same condition. 5. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 complainant on 3.12.93. He stated on oath that he was posted as District Agriculture Officer, Hardoi in August 1991. Appellant Murli was granted licence for selling fertilizer from his department and was granted registration certificate for selling fertilizer within the limits of Kasba and P.S. Pihani. On 13.12.91 Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hardoi had taken the sample from M/S Murli Khad Bhandar and the same was sent from his office for analysis to Meerut Laboratory. The report was received at his office vide letter No. 795 dated 22.1.92. According to the report the percentage of phosphate was found 13.96, while according to the standard it should have been 16%, as such the sample was found to be substandard. He proved Analyst's report, Ext. Ka1. The report was got typed and signed by him and report, Ext. Ka2 was lodged by him at P.S. Pihani on 11.2.92. 6. Anil Kumar Srivastava, P.W.-2, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow stated on oath that on 24.2.94 he was posted as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hardoi on 13.12.91 and sample of Super Phosphate of 'Ramban' brand fertilizer was taken from Murli Khad Bhandar in accordance with procedure as laid down. At that time, Salik Ram was present. According to the stock, there were 33 bags of fertilizer. The sample from three stitched bags was taken and the sample form was filled by him. Seal on the sample was affixed. Three forms were filled, one sample and a form, after filling was given to Salik Ram, at that time his signatures were taken on every form. Thereafter, two samples and forms were sent to District Agriculture Officer, Hardoi. One copy of the form was left with him, which was in his handwriting and signature and signature of Salik Ram was also present. This witness proved Ext. Ka-3. 7. P.W.-3 H.C.C. No. 65 Randhir Singh stated that Ext. Ka4 was prepared by him on the basis of typed application of Sri Suresh Singh, District Agriculture Officer, Hardoi. One copy of the form was left with him, which was in his handwriting and signature and signature of Salik Ram was also present. This witness proved Ext. Ka-3. 7. P.W.-3 H.C.C. No. 65 Randhir Singh stated that Ext. Ka4 was prepared by him on the basis of typed application of Sri Suresh Singh, District Agriculture Officer, Hardoi. He also proved G.D. report No. 30 written at 18.10 hours dated 11.2.92. 8. P.W.-4 S.I. Mewa Ram Chaudhary on 17.4.98 stated that the case was registered on 11.2.92. He investigated the case. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Statement of accused Murli was recorded on 21.5.92. On 3.6.92 application for sanction for prosecution against appellant was given to District Magistrate and the Case Diary was also produced. He proved signature of M.P. Jain, the then District Magistrate, Hardoi on sanction, Ext. Ka6. After completing the investigation on 26.6.92 submitted charge sheet in his writing and signature, Ext. Ka7. Statement of accused was recorded on 2.5.98 under Section 3 13 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that no violation has been made of Section 19 Sub-Clause I of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and he has not committed offence under Section 3 /7 E.C. Act. He stated that he has been falsely been implicated due to enmity and the case is concocted. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trail court. 10. The scrutiny of the evidence as well as discussions made by the learned court suggests that the learned trial court has analyzed the evidence and reached to the correct conclusion that evidence recorded makes out a case under Section 3 /7 E.C. Act against appellant Murli. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. 12. So far as the sentence in the present case is concerned, the court has to strike a just balance. In the present case, the occurrence took place in the year 1991, i.e. twenty three years back. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has no other criminal antecedent. The appellant remained in jail for some time. The conviction is based on technical grounds and the percentage of phosphate found less was meager. Learned counsel states that the appellant is a law abiding person and has already remained in jail for some time. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has no other criminal antecedent. The appellant remained in jail for some time. The conviction is based on technical grounds and the percentage of phosphate found less was meager. Learned counsel states that the appellant is a law abiding person and has already remained in jail for some time. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the ends of justice would successfully meet if the appellant is awarded punishment already undergone by him. The accused appellant shall pay fine within sixty days from the date of receipt of record by the learned trial court. In the event of default in payment of fine, the accused appellant shall have to undergo further imprisonment as directed by the judgment and order passed by the court below. Amount of fine, if any, deposited earlier in this regard before the learned trial court, shall be adjusted by learned trial Court. 15. The office is directed to send the lower court record along with copy of judgment to the trial court, without delay, so as to ensure that it reaches the learned trial court within thirty days from today. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of, in such a fashion that it is partly allowed. The conviction is confirmed but the sentence is modified to the extent, as stated above.