Sant Lal vs State of Haryana

V.M. Jain, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.11.1987 passed by Shri S.D. Arora, Special Judge, Sirsa, convicting the accusedappellant Sant Lal under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one month.

In my opinion, it is not necessary to give the facts of the case in details as the learned counsel appearing for accusedappellant Sant Lal, during the course of arguments, did not challenge the conviction of the accusedappellant recorded by the learned Special Judge. However, the learned counsel for the accusedappellant submitted that considering the old age of the accusedappellant he may be released on probation.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

In my opinion, the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted accusedappellant Sant Lal under Section 7 of the Act, for violation of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality JUDGMENT 1977. I am further of the opinion that in view of the evidence led by the prosecution, learned counsel appearing for the accusedappellant has rightly not challenged the conviction of the accusedappellant. Accordingly, I affirm the conviction of the accusedappellant under Section 7 of the Act.

Coming to the question of sentence, the learned Special Judge has sentenced the accusedappellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one month. In the judgment dated 9.11.1987 the learned Special Judge had given the age of accusedappellant Sant Lal as 72 years. This age was apparently taken by the learned Special Judge from the age given by the accusedappellant in his statement while denying the charge framed against him on 5.3.1987, wherein he had given his age as 72 years. When his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., was recorded on 16.9.1987, the accusedappellant had given his age as 82 years without any objection from other side. Even if the age of the accusedappellant is taken as 72 years in the year 1987, he would be aged 84 years now. It may also be mentioned here that in the identification slip prepared by Sub Inspector Mange Ram, pertaining to accusedappellant Sant Lal, his age was given by the local police as 70 years on 11.9.1986. Thus, even according to the prosecution the accusedappellant was 70 years of age in the year 1986 and now he would be aged 83 years. Thus his age could be assessed at 83/84 years.

Keeping in view the old age of the accusedappellant, in my opinion, he would certainly be entitled to be released on probation of good conduct, especially when he is not a previous conduct and is a first offender. Merely because Legislature has provided the minimum sentence under the provisions of the Act, in my opinion, would not be sufficient to disentitle the accused appellant of being granted the benefit of probation, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 CLR (Punjab & Haryana) 196. In the said authority it was held by the Full Bench of this Court, in a case under the Punjab Excise Act, that the prescribed minimum sentence under the provisions of the said Act, would not operate as a bar to the applicability of the provisions of Section 360/361, Cr.P.C. Similarly, in a case under the Essential Commodities Act, this Court, in the case of Niranjan and another v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069, had ordered the release of the accusedappellant on probation, on the ground that the accused had to face protracted criminal proceedings.

In view of the above, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be fully met in case the accusedappellant Sant Lal is ordered to be released on probation, instead of giving him the substantive sentence. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the accused appellantunder Section 7 of the Act, it is directed that accusedappellant Sant Lal shall be released on probation of good conduct, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ with one surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months and to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during the said period of six months. The sentence imposed upon the accusedappellant is accordingly set aside. The requisite bonds be furnished before the trial Court within a period of one month from today failing which the accusedappellant shall undergo the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Special Judge.

With the above modification on the question of sentence, the present appeal stands disposed of accordingly.