Niranjan Lal vs State of Haryana

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The appellant was tried for an offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the allegations that he had been selling rationed sugar and kerosene to the consumers at higher prices. Vide judgment and order dated 29.5.1998/2.6.1998 learned Special Judge, Faridabad acquitted him of the above allegations but convicted him for the aforementioned offence as he did not maintain the account books (sales register and stock register) properly and, thus, contravened the provisions of Clause 9 of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality Control Order, 1977. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the appellant filed the present appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of his client. However, he has submitted that the offence relates to the year 1995 when FIR No. 120 dated 10.5.1995 was registered against him. At that time, the appellant was 46 years of age as is clear from the heading of the impugned judgment. Ever since then, he has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution. He has already deposited the fine on 2.6.1998. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant be reduced.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant by submitting that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant awarding of deterrent punishment to the appellant.

Offence u/s 7 of the Act for which the appellant stands convicted is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with fine. No minimum sentence is prescribed for the violation of the provisions of Section 3(2)(i) of the Act for which offence the appellant stands convicted by the trial Court. It is a fact that the appellant has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 15 years. The present appeal has remained pending in this Court for about 12 years. He must be in his sixties now. When the appellant was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was the sole bread winner in his family consisting of his wife and six children and that he had clean antecedents. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars so as to serve the imprisonment imposed upon him. Instead, ends of justice would be best met if the appellant is directed to surrender before the trial Court and to remain present there till the rising of the Court. At the same time, the fine of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court can be enhanced by Rs. 10,000/-.

Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is maintained. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court at 10.00 a.m. on any particular day but within a period of three months from today. He shall remain present in the Court till its rising. He shall also deposit the enhanced amount of fine of Rs. 10,000/- with the trial Court on the date of his surrender. In the event of the appellant surrendering and depositing the enhanced fine, as mentioned above, his substantive sentence of imprisonment shall stand reduced to that already undergone by him. In the event of the petitioner not surrendering and depositing the enhanced fine within the prescribed period, he shall undergo the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the trial Court.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.