Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1377 (RAJ)

Laxmi Narain v. The State of Rajasthan

2015-07-22

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.2.1994 passed by Special Judge, (EC Act), Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 33/1991, whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentenced them to undergo three months' SI with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report was lodged by the Assisant Director, Sub Division Agriculture (Extension), Shahpura, District Jaipur on 21.12.1990 at Police Station, Shahpura to the effect that he inspected the shop of M/s. Chaudhary Khad Beej Bhandar, Manoharpur at 2.00 PM on 16.8.1990 in the capacity of Fertilizer Inspector. At the time of inspection, the accused appellant namely Ram Karan was present at the premises of shop and he was working there. The owner of establishment is accused Laxmi Narain. The Inspector introduced himself to the accused appellant Ram Karan and took a sample of single superphasphate Atul Brand. In the form 'J', the signatures of Ram Karan as dealer were obtained and the sample was sent for examination. As per the report of examination of sample dated 15.10.1990, the same was not found in accordance with the ingredients. On that basis, FIR was registered and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the accused persons before the court below. The substance of accusation was stated to the accused persons, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses. Thereafter statement of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, vide its judgment dated 15.2.1994, as indicated here-in-above. Against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 3. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below. Against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 3. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that looking to the nature of allegation and the matter pertains to the year 1990, which is 25 years ago from today approximately, the accused appellants are old persons having the children of marriagable age, it is the first offence of their life, they should be released on probation while dealing with the provisions under Section 360 Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harivallabha and Another v. State of M.P. reported in (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 330. Relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- "3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants are first offenders and in the facts and circumstances of the case they should have been dealt with under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") and the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to three months without recording any reasons, as required under Section 361 of the Code, which lays down that for special reasons to be recorded, a court can refuse to release a person on probation of good conduct under Section 360 of the Code. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellants should have been dealt with under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and while upholding the conviction and sentence of fine awarded to the appellants, sentence of imprisonment awarded against them is set aside and the trial court is directed to deal with them under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bail bonds." 4. Further, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 27/1987 - Kamal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan; decided on 6th May, 2013. 5. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bail bonds." 4. Further, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 27/1987 - Kamal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan; decided on 6th May, 2013. 5. Per Contra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the impugned judgment, but there was nothing to rebut the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that they are the first offender. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that appellants deserve benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence of fine awarded to the accused appellants is maintained. However, the sentene of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellants is modified and it is directed that if they execute a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so within a period of one year and in the meanwhile maintain peace and be of good behaviour, the accused appellants should be released under Section 360 Cr.P.C. 9. The bonds, as mentioned above, will be furnished by the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which the Trial Court shall take steps against the appellants for execution of the sentence awarded to them by the trial court, in accordance with law. 10. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated here in above. *******