Allahabad High Court
Shiv Singh vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1427 of 1983
Appellant :- Shiv Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- T.Rathore,Ankit Agarval
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Sri Ankit Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 07.06.1983 passed by the Special Judge, Bulandshahr, convicting the appellant under section 3 read with section 7(1)(a)(q) of Essential Commodities Act, read with U.P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturing Licence order 1967 and has been sentenced for three months rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution case is briefly stated that the accused has got a Rab manufacturing business in the village Buklana which was inspected on 28.11.1982 by the Khandsari Inspector who found that the Rab, Khandsari and Gur was being manufactured in the unit and six meerut type Bhattis were being worked although according to the condition of licence only five Bhattis could be installed. A sanction was obtained by the Khandsari Inspector from the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr and has filed a complaint against the appellant.
In order to prove his case the prosecution has examined the Khandsari Inspector Sri Shiv Shanker Prasad (P.W.-1), who has stated that he inspected the factory on 28.11.1982 and found that instead of five Bhattis the accused was operating six Bhattis at the spot. He had thus made a breach of condition no.3 of the licence granted to him for manufacturing Khandsari.
The trial court has recorded a finding that no Khandsari business operated by the power can be run without a licence as provided in the control order. The condition no.3 also provided that no licencee shall add or alter the capacity of the unit or alter the number of bels in the unit. There is no challenge to the allegations that the licence granted to the accused was for five bels. The para 8 of the control order prescribes that if there is a contravention of the provisions of the order or conditions of the licence it shall be punishable in accordance with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. Thus on the basis of the facts that the appellant was running six bels unit instead of the sanctioned five bels unit by the licence, the conviction has been recorded by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage submits that there is no error in the conviction recorded by the trial court. However, the sentence imposed by the trial court by means of impugned judgement, in view of the intervening facts is too harsh. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, which provides that for adequate special reason mentioned, the sentence imposed may be less than three months. He further submits that the appellant is aged about 68 years and the appeal was filed in the year 1983 and about 40 years have passed and the appellant has already suffered since long on account of pendency of the criminal proceeding against him and the interest of justice would be best served, in case, the appellant who was arrested on 07.06.1983 and was granted bail by this Court on 20.06.1983 and the sentence as imposed by the trial court may be modified to the extent of already under gone.
The learned AGA for the State has not opposed the argument of learned counsel for the appellant on the question of sentence and submits that the long pendency of the criminal proceeding are the adequate and special reason for reducing the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that conviction has not been put to challenge by the appellant and only the sentence has been challenged and in view of the reason that the appellant is aged about 68 years and was convicted under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for having violated the conditions of the licence, this Court considered that there are adequate and special reason to impose a sentence of a term less than three months. Under the circumstances, since the appellant was arrested on 07.06.1983 and was released on bail under the order of this Court on 20.06.1983, the sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of the period already under gone, as herein above recorded is imposed, as such the appeal to that extent is allowed and the sentence awarded by the trial court is modify to the aforesaid extent. The appellant is imposed sentence to period of detention already undergone.
The appeal is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2022
VKG
