Naresh Chandra Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2013 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Champawat in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2012, "Naresh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat and also against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat in Criminal Case No. 457 of 2012 (Case Crime No. 1300 of 2008), under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, whereby the revisionist were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further three months simple imprisonment.

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant lodged an FIR alleging therein that on information, the informant came to know that two Nepali people who often smuggling the cement, compost, kerosene oil etc from Tankpur to Nepal upon their motorcycles. At that moment, they were near the Gandhi Park and conversation was going between them about the purchasing of Kerosene oil. Taking this information as true, the informant along with other police officials reached the Gandhi Park and seeing two persons who were tying the plastics canes in their motorcycles outside the warehouse of Naresh Chandra Gupta. Both tried to run away, but they were arrested on the spot. From the possession of the accused persons, Jaricanes were recovered and on asking regarding the said recovery, they told that they had purchased the Kerosene oil from the Naresh Chandra Gupta (present revisionist) and 20 litres kerosene oil was also recovered from the warehouse of Naresh Chandra Gupta.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Based on the same, charges were framed and the Court below has convicted the revisionists for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Learned counsel for the revisionist does not press this revision on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Since the revisionist's counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is maintained.

Learned State Counsel would submit that revisionist has served about 27 days in the jail.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is the poor person and the matter relates back to the year 2008. He submits that revisionist has served 27 days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Since the revisionist has served 27 days imprisonment and also considering the nature of the case, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the revisionist, is sufficient to serve the purpose.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and the fact that matter relates back to the year 2008, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the revisionist is reduced to three months adjusting the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced to three months of simple imprisonment adjusting the period already undergone by the revisionist. The sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- The enhanced amount shall be deposited before the trial Court as per rules. If the revisionist fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine, he shall serve the two months simple imprisonment in addition. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above.

Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned for doing the needful at the earliest. A copy of this order also be sent to the Superintendent of Jail concerned for compliance.