CRA-332-SB of 1995 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Decided on Aug 21,2009.
Mahender -- Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana --Respondent.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal,Sr.Advocate,with
Mr.Virender Mittal,Advocate,for the appellant
Mr.Amit Khatkar,AAG,Haryana, for the respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.5.1995
passed by learned Special Judge, Bhiwani, whereby he convicted the
appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read
with the provisions of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of
Mal-Practices in Supply and Distribution) Order,1990 and against the order
of sentence of the same date vide which the appellant has been sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.40,000/-. In
default of payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to suffer further
R.I. for nine months.
The appellant was released on bail by the learned Special
Judge, Bhiwani, on 29.5.1995.
On 08.6.1995, this appeal was admitted by this Court and bail
CRA-332-SB of 1995 2
granted by the trial Court was extended till the decision of the appeal.
The facts of the case are not required to be recapitulated as the
same have been given in detail in the trial Court judgment as at the outset,
learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not challenging the
order of conviction on merit and has rather challenged the quantum of
sentence only and has prayed for release of the appellant on probation.
Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant is not a
previous convict. He has faced agony of protracted criminal proceedings
for about 17 years as the case was instituted in the year 1992. At the time of
registration of case against him, he was 37 years of age. Now he is 53
years of age.
The learned counsel has prayed for release of the appellant on
probation of good conduct. He has placed reliance upon various decision
of this Court in the cases of Silak Ram Vs. Haryana State, 2005 (2) RCR
(Criminal) 843 (P&H), Satinder Singh Vs. Punjab State, 2003 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 616 (P&H), M/S.Maya Ram and Sons Vs. State of Haryana
2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 114 (P&H), Virender Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana, 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 775 (P&H) and Subhash Chand
Vs. State of Punjab 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 332 (P&H). He also
relied upon decision in Dhanpat Singh Vs. The State of Haryana, 2008
(2) RCR (Criminal) 253 (P&H).
Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid cases and that the appellant is not a previous convict having no
previous criminal history and the fact that he has faced protracted criminal
proceedings for a period of about 17 years, I find it to be a fit case in which
sentence awarded to the appellant should be set aside and he be released on
CRA-332-SB of 1995 3
probation of good conduct.
In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. The
judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court is maintained .However,
the order of sentence is set aside, and the appellant is ordered to be released
on probation of good conduct on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, for a period of three years, to appear
and receive sentence, as and when called upon to do so, during this period,
and in the meantime, to keep peace, and be of good behaviour, and also
furnish an undertaking not to commit such an offence during the said period
. The appellant shall also pay costs of the proceedings which are enhanced
to Rs.50,000/- from Rs.40,000/-. The appellant shall furnish the probation
bonds and pay the costs of the proceedings, within a period of 20 days,
from the date of receipt of certified copy of order, by the concerned Court.
Failure on the part of the appellant, to furnish the probation bonds, and
deposit the costs of proceedings, within the period stipulated, shall entitled
the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, to comply with the
judgment, in accordance with law.
This appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
Aug 21,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge