Crl. Appeal No. 702-SB of 1996 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
Decided on July 13,2009
Devinder Kumar --- Appellant
vs.
State ---Respondent.
Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma,Advocate, for the appellant
Mr.Rajiv Sharma,Standing Counsel for U.T,Chandigarh.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:
The appellant along-with his wife Smt.Saroj Devi (since
acquitted) was tried in a case bearing FIR No.297 dated 18.11.1992 under
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, (in short,’the Act’) and Sections
420,468,474,120-B IPC, registered at Police Station, Sector 26 (East),
Chandigarh, on the complaint addressed by Updesh Singh (PW-11),
Inspector, Department of Food & Supplies, U.T,Chandigarh to the Station
House Officer, Sector 26, Chandigarh, stating therein that the appellant
Devinder Kumar had obtained two ration cards, one in his own name and
the other in the name of his wife Saroj Devi on false information and he
had been drawing essential commodities issued under the public distribution
system against both the ration cards.
The investigation was conducted by Sub Inspector Ved
Parkash, Police Post Maloya Bapudham Colony, who took into possession
both the ration cards. Statement of Depot Holder was recorded.
Application forms filled by the appellant for obtaining ration cards were
Crl. Appeal No. 702-SB of 1996 2
also obtained and after recording the statements of the witnesses, the
appellant along with his wife was arrested and produced in the Court and
after completion of necessary investigation, charge sheeted the appellant
along-with his wife under the aforesaid provisions of the Act.
In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined
Inspector Manohar Lal (PW-1), Kamal Kishore (PW-2). Sushil Kumar (PW-
3) Inspector Mangal Singh (PW-4), Madan Lal (PW-5) Gopal Dutt (PW-6),
Ramesh Sharma (PW-7), Jatinder Kumar (PW-8), Lal Singh (PW-9),
Chhabil Dass (PW-10), Updesh Singh Inspector (PW-11) and ASI Ved
Parkash (PW-12) and the evidence was then closed by the learned Public
Prosecutor by making a statement.
Insofar as Saroj Devi, wife of the appellant is concerned, no
offence was found to have been made out against her, therefore, she was
acquitted vide order dated 9.10.1996 by the learned Sessions
Judge,Chandigarh.
Insofar as the appellant is concerned, no offence under
Sections 420,468,474,120-B of IPC was made out except for offence under
Section 7 of the Act. Thus, the appellant was held guilty and convicted
under Section 7 of the Act vide order dated 9.10.1996 by the learned
Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and was sentenced to undergo R.I for four
months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to further
undergo R.I. for one month. It was recorded that the fine has been paid.
Vide order dated 29.10.1996, this appeal was admitted and
sentence of the appellant was suspended on his furnishing bail bonds
before the trial Court.
It is worthwhile to mention that in this case, no one had
Crl. Appeal No. 702-SB of 1996 3
appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice to his counsel, therefore,
vide order dated 19.5.2009, Mr. Naveen Sharma,Advocate, was appointed
as Amicus-Curiae.
Mr.Naveen Shama, Amicus-Curiae, appeared on 2.7.2009 and
has argued that in view of the evidence available on record, it would not be
possible for him to argue on the point of acquittal, therefore conviction is
maintained. Insofar as sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that FIR in this case is of the year 1992. Almost 17
years have passed. The appellant has already deposited the fine. The
sentence is only four months. Therefore, in would not be in the interest of
justice if the appellant is sent to suffer the sentence after protracted trial of
17 years. He rather argued that some fine may be increased and the
sentence may be reduced to one already undergone.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the
view that the occurrence in this case took place almost 17 years ago in
which the appellant has been sentenced for four months. Thus, it would be
in the interest of justice if the sentence awarded is reduced to the period
already undergone while maintaining his conviction.
In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the
sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already under
gone. The appellant, shall, however, deposit another sum of Rs.2000./- as
fine in the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order or an intimation in this regard. In case of non-deposit of
Crl. Appeal No. 702-SB of 1996 4
amount of fine awarded by this court, the present appeal shall be deemed
to have been dismissed.
July 13,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge