Allahabad High Court
Ali Daraj vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3032 of 1986
Appellant :- Ali Daraj
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Kamlesh Singh,Devesh Kumar Verma,Suresh Chandra Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13th November, 1986 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Farrukhabad in Special Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1984 (State Vs. Ali Daraz), convicting the appellant under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution case in brief is that P.W.-1 Sri Hariman Pandey, District Supply Officer; P.W.-2 Sri R.C. Shukla, Senior Food Inspector and P.W.-4 Sri S.P. Singh, Supply Inspector along with others inspected the shop of accused, Ali Daraz at Kamalganj. Accused, Ali Daraz was a retail licence dealer in kerosene oil. On the date of inspection, 7771 litres of kerosene oil; 60 litres of diesel and 16 litres of mobil oil was recovered from the shop. Stock register was not being maintained. Stock board and rate board was not there. Accused, Ali Daraz was not himself present in the shop and thereafter a First Information Report being Exhibit Ka-3 was prepared and kerosene oil, diesel and mobil oil was given in supurdagi of Sri Surendra Prakas Gupta. Supurdaginama Exhibit Ka-2 was also prepared. A case was registered and investigated. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 Hariman Pandey, the then District Supply Officer; P.W.-2 Sri R.C. Shukla, Senior Food Inspector and P.W.-4 Sri S.P. Singh, Supply Inspector as witnesses of fact. They have deposed the prosecution case as mentioned above. P.W.-3 Sri Munna Lal Sharma, Sub Inspector investigated the case and submitted chargesheet against accused after necessary prosecution. The accused Ali Daraz in his statement has stated that he has purchased diesel and mobil oil for his own irrigation purpose and stock of kerosene oil was correct. He produced D.W.-1 Mohammed Najim in defence.
The trial court after hearing the parties have held that the stock register was not being maintained by the accused and as such the stock on the date of inspection could not be ascertained. The trial court further held that the accused was bound by the conditions of licence to maintain the stock register and showing the balance of stock everyday. The trial court further held that the appellant committed breach of conditions of licence under the kerosene control order as retail dealer. The trial court has further held that the statement of P.W.-1 Hariman Pandey; P.W.-2 R.C. Shukla and P.W.-4 Sri S.P. Singh proved that no stock register or stock was maintained by the accused. The trial court thereafter has held that the appellant has breached the conditions of licence and as such liable for conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The trial court on the basis of the aforesaid conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act have sentenced six months rigorous imprisonment to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aged about 65 years at present and the appellant is not challenging the conviction in the impugned judgment and his argument is restricted to the quantum of sentence. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the sentence imposed by the trial court is highly excessive as the stock register on inspection was not found and there was breach of conditions of licence as per the prosecution case. He submits that the appeal is pending consideration from 1986 and the appellant is facing trial since the year 1984 and considering the age of the appellant, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence imposed on the appellant be reduced. He further submits that the appellant was arrested on 13th November, 1986 in compliance to the impugned judgment and thereafter has been enlarged on bail on 2nd December, 1986 by this Court. He further submits that the ends of justice would be met in case the appellant sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already gone.
Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the factual matrix as has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant and further agrees to the fact that the pendency of the criminal proceedings including the appeal is an essential factor in considering the quantum of sentence at the appellate stage. He submits that since there was violation of the conditions of licence as such the period of sentence may be reduced already undergone. Considering the fact that the conviction of the appellant is based on the fact that the conditions of licence has been breached by not maintaining the stock register during inspection and the fact that the appellant has already travelled for criminal prosecution from the year 1984 and the appeal is pending since 1986 and the age of the appellant is about 65 years and the fact that the appellant was arrested on 13th November, 1986 and was released on bail by this Court on 2nd December, 1986, the sentence imposed by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and a fine of Rs. 500/- is imposed on the appellant. In case of default in depositing the fine, four days simple imprisonment is awarded.
The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is modified to the aforesaid extent.
The appeal is partly allowed.
Let the lower court record be sent back to the court below forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment, for ascertaining necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022
VMA
