Allahabad High Court
Mahipal Singh vs State Of U.P. on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2918 of 1983
Appellant :- Mahipal Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- V.C. Katiyar,Amresh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Amresh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24th November, 1983 passed by the Special Judge, Mirzapur in Special Case No. 18 of 1983 convicting the appellant under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
As per the prosecution case, on 8th February, 1983, at about 3.00 p.m., one Firangilal, Supply Inspector and Vadibhushan Pandey, Supply Inspector, Tehsil Chunar found that the brick kiln of the appellant was being run with slack coal without any licence and on the aforesaid date the brick kiln was running and about two lakhs fifty thousand bricks made up of slack coal was found and eight metric tonnes of slack coal was also found and at the time of inspection, the Muneem Babulal of the appellant was present who has stated that the appellant is out of station and no licence has been made in respect of the running of the brick kiln and on the aforesaid basis, the First Information Report was lodged and the investigation was held and the chargesheet was submitted. The accused person denied the charges and claimed to be tried. It is also claimed by the appellant-accused that the brick kiln was run by Jhai coal. The prosecution has produced two witnesses being Firangilal, Supply Inspector as P.W.-1 who has supported the prosecution case and has proved the report being Exhibit Ka-1 and the P.W.-2, Supply Inspector, Lalchand Singh who is the Investigating Officer of the case has proved the Chik FIR being Exhibit Ka-2 and the carbon copy being Exhibit Ka-3. He has further stated that he has taken statement of Vadibhushan Pandey, Supply Inspector and on his pointing out the site was inspected and the site plan was prepared and at the time of inspection of the site, the brick kiln was running with slack coal and eight metric tonnes of slack coal was found at the place of occurrence. He further stated that during investigation he did not find any licence to run the brick kiln. The trial court on the aforesaid basis has come to the finding that there is no evidence which would discredit the testimony of the aforesaid witness and during the cross examination nothing adverse has been elucidated from the testimony of the aforesaid witness. The trial court has further recorded a finding that at the time of inspection of the brick kiln, slack coal was found and brick kiln was run with slack coal as per the testimony of the prosecution witness and further the trial court has recorded a finding that at the place of occurrence both the prosecution witnesses have found slack coal and on the aforesaid basis the trial court has returned a finding that the brick kiln was run by the slack coal. The trial court has further recorded a finding that although there is no independent witness, however, the prosecution witness are public servant and there is no evidence which would create any doubt with regard to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court has further recorded a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the brick kiln was run by slack coal and eight metric tonnes of coal was found at the place of occurrence. There is no evidence that the brick kiln was being run by Jhai as has been claimed by the appellant and on the aforesaid basis, the appellant has been convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Sri Amresh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging the conviction. However, the sentence imposed by the trial court is too harsh in view of the fact that the appellant was found to be using slack coal and as such without a licence. He further submits that appellant is 70 years of age and the incident is of 8th February, 1983 and the appeal is pending since the year 1983. The appellant has already been in jail since 5th April, 1983 and was released on bail by the order dated 11th April, 1983 of the court below. He further submits that thereafter the appellant was again taken into custody on 24th November, 1983 and was released on bail by this Hon'ble Court by order dated 30th November, 1983 and on the aforesaid basis, the counsel for the appellant submits that the sentence imposed by the trial court by means of the impugned judgment is excessive and in view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances warrant reduction of sentence.
Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the sentence imposed by the trial court is on higher side and the sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice provided the fine is increased.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period that the appellant was in jail since 5th April, 1983 to 11th April, 1983 and again from 24th November, 1983 to 30th November, 1983 and the fact that the appellant is 70 years of age and has already suffered the prosecution from the year 1983, the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment is modified and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone. However, both the learned counsel for the parties submits that the fine may be increased and as such in the interest of justice a fine of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed on the appellant and to the aforesaid extent the judgment of the trial court is modified.
The fine imposed is to be deposited within a period of one month. In case of default in depositing the fine, seven 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 :- 18.8.2022
VMA
