Niranjan Dass vs State of Punjab

G.R. Majithia, J.

The appellants, who was convicted and sentenced under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by Special Judge, Amritsar, has challenged the same in this appeal.

The prosecution story, briefly put, is that on October 18, 1983, a raid was carried out at Basarke Mandi, to check the stocks of wheat dealers and commission agents. A raid was carried out at the premises of the accused. He runs a kiryana shop in a part of his house; 42 bags of wheat each weighing one quintal were recovered and recovery memo Ex. P.B. was prepared. Wheat was handed over to Shri Gurdip singh, Sarpanch, on superdari vide sapurdarimemo Ex. PC. In the stock register, the accused had shown as Nil stock for October, 18, 1983. Letter, Ex. PE, was sent to the police station for registration of the case. A show cause notice was also given to the accused, who filed reply, Ex. PF.

The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW2 Dalip Singh, District Food and Supplies Officer, Patti and PW 3, Jagir Singh, A.F.S.O., Amritsar with respect to the search and recovery. Onkar Nath was tendered for cross examination.

It is not disputed that a raid was carried out by the officials of the Food and Civil Supplies Department and that 42 bags of wheat were recovered from the possession of the accused. It is also not disputed that accused appellant does not hold the licence under the Licensing JUDGMENT 1982, but is only a Commission Agent. The prosecution version is that the accusedappellant had not shown 42 bags of wheat in the stockregister and he was not competent to keep so much bags of wheat in his possession without a valid licence. They accused admits his signatures on Ex. PA, but explained that it was taken under coercion.

The prosecution venison stands fully corroborated from the evidence of the official witnesses. They are not in any manner inimical to the accused.

The defence version that the accused is a Commission Agent and the wheat is received by him from the agriculturists for disposal was disbelieved by the learned Special Judge, who also opined that the stock register relating to unsold stock of the agriculturists brought to the shop of the accused was fabricated and I do not find any ground to differ from his conclusion.

The conviction of the appellant is, thus, maintained. The Special Judge has declined the concession of Probation of Offenders Act, 1985 to the appellant on unjustified grounds. For declining the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, the defence of the accused appellant has been categorised as false. Even if the defence version is not believed, there appears to be no justification for declining the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. The occurrence took p;lace on October 18, 1983. The conviction of the appellantaccused was recorded on June 10, 1986. The appeal was admitted by this Court on July 9, 1986 and the appellant was granted the benefit of bail. In the circumstances of the instant case, I set aside the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded by the trial Court to the appellant and it is directed that the accused appellant be released on probation for a period of two years on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5, 000/ with one surety in the like amount before the trial Court undertaking to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour and to appear and receive sentence as and when required by the Court. The amount of fine shall be treated as cost of proceedings. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Appeal disposed