The Supreme Court examined whether the minimum sentence prescribed in a particular section of the law could be reduced. However, considering that the offence occurred over 37 years ago and the Appellant had no criminal history, the Apex Court granted the Appellant probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The appellant had been found guilty of violating para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978, by possessing an excess mustard and vegetable oil stock. Despite the absence of the relevant proviso at the time of the offence, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Lower Courts.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant faced trial and was found guilty under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1995”) for violating para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “Order, 1978”). During an inspection of his grocery shop, it was discovered that the mustard and vegetable oil was beyond the permissible limit. As a result, the Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to rigorous imprisonment for six months and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-. The seized oil's sale proceeds were forfeited to the State.
In appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from six months to three months of rigorous imprisonment, while the fine remained upheld. On 7.9.2018, notice in the appeal was issued, restricted to the question of imposing a fine in lieu of or in addition to the sentence.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that the incident in question occurred in 1985 during the inspection of the Appellant's grocery shop. Over 37 years have passed since then. Although the trial concluded within a year, the case remained pending in the High Court for over 31 years, during which the Appellant remained on bail. Therefore, it was requested that the imprisonment sentence be revoked, and instead, a fine could be imposed.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that despite the incident occurring over 37 years ago, two Courts had already established that the Appellant committed the offence. The Act, 1995 Section 7(1)(a)(ii) requires a minimum punishment of three months. However, the State acknowledged that the proviso of this provision permits a sentence below the prescribed minimum for "special" and "adequate" reasons, which must be recorded.
Observations of the Court:
The Court analysed that although the Court has the power to impose a sentence less than the minimum prescribed in the section, the offence committed in this case happened before the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Amendment Act, 1981, which introduced the proviso. Despite that, the Court did not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower Courts regarding the Appellant's guilt. The Appellant had been found with an excess stock of mustard and vegetable oil, violating para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978.
The Top Court believed that the Appellant deserved probation because the offence happened over 37 years ago, and the Appellant had not been involved in any other crime. During the appeal, the Appellant remained on bail, and the Court exempted him from surrendering. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which has a non-obstante clause, allows the Court to release certain offenders on probation for good conduct. The Court cited the relevant provisions of Section 4 and stated that the Court could release the offender on probation for up to three years if satisfied that it is expedient.
The decision of the Court:
The Appellant was granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Accordingly, the Appeal was disposed of.
Case Title: Tarak Nath Keshari vs State of West Bengal
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.1444 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 462 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Kuldeep Rai, Adv., Mr. Ankur Jain, Adv., Mr. Robin Khokhar, AOR, Mr. Ram Bhadauria, Adv., Mr. Anil Raina, Adv., Ms. Diksha Sarin, Adv., Mr. Dr. Om Prakash Kharbanda, Adv., Mr. Rochak Kharbanda, Adv., Mr. Rajkumar Jain, Adv., Ms. Nandini Rai,Adv. and Mr. Aniruddha Singh Rajawat,Adv.
Advocates for Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR, Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha, Adv., Ms. Arushi Mishra, Adv. and Mr. Sandeep, Adv.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :