Maman Chand vs The State of Haryana

Virender Singh, J.—Maman Chand son of Ram Kumar aged 30 years (age taken from charge sheet) stands convicted by leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani u/s 7(1)(b) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ''the Act'') and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months.

In short, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was a food grain licensee from Food and Supplies Department, Haryana and on 3.1.1989 he had lifted 47 quintals 50 kgs. of wheat in 49 bags with F.C.I. marks for public distribution at his depot situated at B.T.M. Road, Bhiwani. This wheat was lifted vide R.C. No. 252 dated 2.1.1989. The allegation against the appellant further is that instead of distributing this wheat to the ration card holders, the same was sold to one chakkiwala and when the wheat was being transported from his depot to the chakki owner, on the way in Naya Bazar, HC Om Parkash alongwith other constables intercepted him and found 13 bags in one bullock-cart driven by Jaipal and in two rickshaw pulled by Mahabir and Ram Pehlad. There were four bags of wheat in each rickshaw. Magan Chand appellant was then enquired by HC Om Parkash in respect of production of any paper regarding transportation of wheat from his depot but he could not show any document. Consequently, the bullock-cart and rickshaws were taken into possession. On the basis of ruqa Ex. PH, formal FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared at the spot. Besides this, statements of all the relevant PWs were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The appellant was thereafter arrested in this case.

The trial court charged the appellant u/s 7(1) of the Act for having contravened the provisions of clause IInd and IIIrd of Haryana Food Articles (Licensing and Price Control) Order, 1985. On consideration of entire evidence, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as stated above.

I have heard Mr. H.S. Gill, learned Senior Advocate, counsel for the appellant Mr. Rajinsh Dhanda, learned Assistant Advocate General, representing the State of Haryana. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire records of the case.

At the very outset, Mr. Gill has submitted that he does not press the appeal on merits and instead prayed for reduction in the sentence. In support of his arguments, Mr. Gill has submitted that the present case relates to the year 1989 and by now the appellant has faced rigor of protracted trial of about 14 years. Besides this the appellant is not a previous convict. Mr. Gill has also tendered one medical certificate showing the ailment of the appellant. According to the said document, the appellant is suffering from heart disease. Mr. Gill in support of his arguments on the point of quantum of sentence has relied upon two judgments of this Court rendered in Sant Lal v. State of Haryana 1999(2) All LR 652 and Niranjan and Anr. v. State of Haryana 1992(3) Crimes 1069. Mr. Gill relying upon these two judgments has contended that the appellant is entitled to the benefit or probation.

On the other hand Mr. Dhanda has submitted that the appellant does not deserve any leniency because he was in the process of selling wheat to one chakkiwala whereas the same was to be distributed to the different ration card holders.

So far as the merits of the case is concerned, although Mr. Gill has not assailed the conviction of the appellant on merit, yet I feel after scanning the entire evidence minutely that the conviction as recorded by the trial court is to be maintained. Consequently, I confirm the conviction of the appellant for the charge framed against him.

With regard to the reduction in quantum of sentence is concern/d, I feel that there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the present case relates to January, 1989. The appellant is not a previous convict. He has already suffered the agony of protracted trial of about 14 years. The judgments rendered in Sant Lal''s case and Niranjan and Anr. case (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as well. In Sant Lal''s case (supra), this Court observed that although u/s 7 of the Act, minimum sentence is provided but the appellant was released on probation of good conduct especially on the ground that he was not a previous convict and first offender. It was so held that the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. would not operate as a bar in the said case. In Niranjan and Anr. case (supra) also the appellant was released on probation. It was also the case under the Essential Commodities Act and the view taken by this Court was that the appellant had already faced the prosecution for seven years.

After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant is ordered to be released on probation instead of awarding substantive sentence. Accordingly, upholding the conviction of the appellant for the charge framed against him it is directed that the appellant Maman Chand son of Ram Kumar shall be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20000/- with one surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during the said period of one year.

It is further made clear that the bail/surety bond to be furnished by the appellant would be without the supervision of Probation Officer. The requisite bonds shall be furnished before the trial court within one month from today, falling which the appellant shall undergo the sentence imposed upon him by (SIC) trial court.

Consequently, the appeal (SIC) dismissed on merit with the modification on the question of sentence as indicated above.