1
S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 216/1994
Subhash Chandra Vs. State
Date of Order :: 26th March 2010
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.M.K.Garg ) for the petitioner
Mr.Shrikant Verma)
Mr.O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor for the State
.....
BY THE COURT:
This revision petition is directed against the judgment
and order dated 09.06.1994 as passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge No.2 Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal
No.81/1992 whereby the learned Appellate Judge partly
allowed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the
judgment and order dated 31.08.1991 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case
No.24/1983; and, while affirming the conviction of the
petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, altered the sentence awarded by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate to that of rigorous imprisonment for three
months with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to further simple imprisonment for one month.
The accusation in this case had been directed against
the petitioner Subhash Chandra and one Niranjan Singh, said
to be related with the firm Garg Fertilizer Company, Jawahar
Market, Sriganganagar. It was alleged that on 19.01.1979
2
Shyam Sunder Goswami, Enforcement Officer carried out
inspection at the business premises of the said firm Garg
Fertilizer Company and found that there were 45 bags of
manure available in the shop allegedly purchased from one
Darshan Singh who had purchased about 130 bags of manure
from the godown of Kisan Co-operative Marketing Society. It
was also alleged that 55 bags were sold by the firm to the
customers without issuing bills and without even obtaining bills
of purchase from Darshan Singh. It was alleged that the
goods in question were not shown in the stock register either
nor the firm had displayed the price and the stock position.
The allegations were essentially of violation of the
requirements of Rajasthan Essential Commodities (Stock and
Price) Order, 1977. Upon filing of the complaint and after the
statement of PW-1 Shyam Sunder Goswami, Enforcement
Officer, charges were framed against the petitioner and
Niranjan Singh and after trial, while Niranjan Singh was
acquitted, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial
Court for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the
finding of the learned Trial Court but reduced the sentence as
noticed hereinbefore.
Seeking to assail the orders aforesaid, the learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders
stand vitiated for the case having not been tried in a
summary manner. It is also submitted that the learned
Courts have acted illegally in not considering the testimony of
3
Darshan Singh DW-1 who clearly deposed that he had given
the bags to the firm as against the amount due in him. The
learned counsel further submitted that no independent
witnesses have been examined in the case and rather the
entire search proceedings were illegal for having been carried
out without search warrant. The learned counsel further
submitted that there had otherwise not been any allegations of
black marketing against the petitioner and even if it were
taken to be a case of mistake in making the requisite entries
in the stock register, the petitioner ought not to have been
visited with harsh punishment.
Having given a thoughtful consideration to the
submissions and having examined the record, so far the
conviction of the petitioner is concerned, this Court is unable to
find any material illegality or irregularity in the orders as
passed by the learned Magistrate and as affirmed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge nor could the trial be said
to have vitiated nor any prejudice has been shown.
However, so far the quantum of punishment is
concerned, it is noticed that the accusation relates to the
incident of the year 1979; and in its essence, the accusation
against the petitioner had been of the technical offence in not
maintaining the stock register properly. In the given set of
facts and circumstances, the present one does not appear to
be a case for imposing the sentence per Clause (a)(ii) of Sub-
section (1) of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is
noticed that the appeal was dismissed by the learned
4
Additional Sessions Judge on 09.06.1994 but execution of the
sentence was suspended by this Court in this revision petition
on 22.06.1994. The accused-petitioner has faced this case for
more than 30 years and taking into consideration the totality
of the circumstances including the nature of accusation
coupled with the fact that the technical offence was committed
more than 30 years back, this Court is of opinion that no useful
purpose would be served with imprisonment of the petitioner at
this length of time; and interest of justice shall be served with
modification of the sentence awarded to the petitioner for
imprisonment to the term already undergone with
enhancement of fine following the decision of this Court in
Prabhu Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan: 1990 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 191.
Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed to
the extent indicated above. While the conviction of the
petitioner under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act
is maintained, the sentence as awarded, in the given
circumstances, is altered to that of the period of imprisonment
already undergone but with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two
thousand), and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
three months’ simple imprisonment.
The fine aforesaid shall be deposited by the petitioner in
the Trial Court within a period of three months failing which,
the learned Trial Court shall take appropriate steps in
accordance with law.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
MK