Ashok Kumar vs State of Haryana

T.P.S. Mann, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Judge, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Fatehabad, whereby the Appellant was convicted u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

The Appellant, who was a whole-sale sugar dealer, stands guilty for not updating the records regarding the balance of sugar kept by him. As per the opening balance, the Appellant was supposed to have 81 quintals whereas at the time of raid, deficiency and shortage of 14 quintals was found.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not challenged the impugned judgment of conviction. However, he has submitted that the offence alleged against the Appellant is technical in nature. It was not the case of the prosecution that the Appellant was out to violate the law by omitting to make entries of certain transactions which actually took place. He has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 131/2 years. He has already deposited the fine of Rs. 25,000/-imposed upon him by the trial Court. He is not a previous convict. Therefore, instead of directing the Appellant to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him, the fine of Rs. 25,000/-awarded by the trial Court be enhanced.

Learned State counsel has submitted that as the Appellant had flouted the provisions of the Haryana Food Articles (Licensing and Price Control) Order, 1985 by not maintaining proper records of the sugar available with him, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. He has also submitted that the Appellant was never admitted in the jail, either as an under trial or as a convict.

In Murarilal Garg Vs. State of Orissa, , the Court after holding the convict therein guilty of having contravened the Licensing Order, which was clearly technical, directed that the sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that instead of sending the Appellant behind the bars for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him, the fine of Rs. 25,000/-imposed by the trial Court can be enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-.

Resultantly, the conviction of the Appellant u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside. Instead, the fine of Rs. 25,000/-earlier imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine be deposited by the Appellant within a period of three months, failing which he shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.