Jhamman Lal And Others vs State
2025 Latest Caselaw 2739 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jhamman Lal And Others vs State on 30 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126967
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2466 of 1986
 

 
Appellant :- Jhamman Lal And Others
 
Respondent :- State
 
Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Chaturvedi,Ashish Goyal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the order dated 30.08.1986 passed by the Special Judge (Economic Offences), Agra in criminal case no. 54 of 1984 whereby (State vs. Jhamman Lal) whereby the appellant herein has been convicted under U.P. Food Foodgraing Dealer (Licencing and Restrictions of Hoarding) Order, 1976 and U/s 3/7 of E.C. Act and sentencing him for six months of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.

3. The facts in brief are that on 09.03.1984 one Raj Kumar Gaur, Marketing Inspector along with the other team member inspected the shop and Aatta Chakki of the appellant wherein it was found that a stock of wheat which was for the purpose of sale. The inspector recovered 15 kgs of wheat which was sighed and 17 quintals 98 kilograms and 500 gms was found. A report was prepared vide Ext. Ex.1 Supurdgi memo of the wheat has been marked as Exh-2. The appellant herein had given his version in writing mentioning that 18 kgs of wheat was in his possession and up to 3:00 p.m. he had only sold 20 kg of wheat. He further alleged that he had taken the Aata Chakki on theka on 07.03.1984. On the basis of written report, chick FIR (Ext. Ka-6) was written and on the basis of the chick FIR G.D. No. 41 (Ex. Ka-7) crime no. 91 under section 3/7 of E.C. Act was registered against the appellant and the investigation was handed over to S.I. R.K. Sharma who had inspected the site and prepared the site map (Ext. Ka-4), obtained the sanction from the District Magistrate, Agra for launching the prosecution against the appellant and after investigation submitted the charge sheet (Ext. Ka.-5) against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution produced P.W.-1 Sri Raj Kumar Gaur Marketing Inspector who had conducted the inspection and recovered the aforesaid wheat and P.W.-2 S.I. Sri R.K. Sharma who has investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet.

5. The accused was examined U/ 313 Cr.P.C. who has denied the charges. The appellant produced D.W. 1 Swaroop Chand Goyal who had stated that on 08.03.1984 he had sent four half bags (Kattas) of wheat for grinding purpose to the appellant's Aata Chakki and D.W.-2 Darshan Lal who had stated that he had sent 67 kgs of wheat for grinding purpose to the appellant's Aata Chakki.

6. The court below after hearing the parties, convicted the appellant for breach of clause 3 of U.P. Foodgrains Dealers (Licencing and Restrictions of Hoarding) Order, 1976 punishable U/s 3/7 of E.C. Act and sentencing to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine, further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to argue that the entire allegations which was the subject matter of FIR which culminated into the order of conviction as no legs to stands for the simple reason that no recovery whatsoever was made from the shop/ Aata chakki which the appellant was managing. The submission is that there is no independent witness to substantiate the same and further merely on the asking of the prosecution conviction has been done without taking into consideration the deposition of the D.W.-1 Swaroop Chand Goyal and D.W.-2 Darshan Lal who had come up with a stand that they had sent certain quantity of wheat for grinding in the Aata chakki. Further submission is that even the provisions contained under the U.P. Foodgrain Dealers (Licensing and Restrictions on Hoarding) Order, 1976 as well as the provisions of section 3/7 of E.C. Act, have not been violated. He submits that without there being any iota or evidence of any recovery has been shown and further the recovery memo itself is not as per the specification and the mandate. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is alleged on 09.03.1984 and more than 41 years have passed and the applicant does not possess any criminal history thus, though the conviction underU.P. Foodgrain Dealers (Licensing and Restrictions on Hoarding) Order, 1976 read with Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act be upheld but sentence may be altered and modified from rigorous imprisonment for six months to fine.

8. Learned State Law Officer countering the submission so made by the counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the court below convicting the appellant cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality, particularly in view of the fact that the court below has meticulously analysed the case of the parties and recorded a finding which led to conviction. The submission is that even as per the defence of the appellant, the appellant himself has admitted that he had sold 20 kgs of wheat thus it become crystal clear case of violation of the provisions. According to him there happens to be adherence to the provisions of the Act and there is no legal infirmity so as to hold the conviction to be bad for the simple reason that the recovery memo was prepared after due diligence and as per the statute. However the learned State Law Officer submits that looking into the nature of the allegations and the fact that the incident is of the year 1984 and more than 41 years have passed, thus, though the conviction be upheld but the sentence be altered and modified from imprisonment to fine.

9. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

10. The FIR alleges that during the course of the inspection of the Marketing Inspector as well as the team so entrusted with the said duty on 09.03.1984 in the shop and Aata Chakki of the appellant, the appellant was found to selling the grains. The appellant himself had admitted that he had sold 20 kgs of wheat even the record demonstrate that the recovery memo was prepared in accordance with law. There is nothing on record to even other wise suggest that there had been any violation of any Act or statute. However, looking into the fact that the incident is dated 09.03.1984 and the appeal is before this Court at the time of hearing in the year 2025 more than 41 years have passed and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant possess any criminal history thus, the facts and the circumstance necessitate that the conviction be upheld, however the imprisonment be altered and modified to fine.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant U/s 3 of U.P. Foodgrains Dealers (Licensing and Restrictions of Hoarding) Order, 1976 read with section 3/7 of E.C. Act is upheld. However, the sentence of the punishment for a period of rigorous imprisonment of six months under section 3 of U.P. Foodgrains Dealers (Licencing and Restrictions of Hoarding) Order, 1976 read with section 3/7 of E.C. Act is altered and modified to the fine of Rs. 5000/-. Fine amount imposed upon appellant accused Jhamman Lal S/o Phedi Lal, shall be deposited within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine within the aforesaid period, appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded by the trial court vide judgment and order, which is under challenge.

11. Let a copy of the judgment along with lower court record be sent to the court of Special Judge (Economic Offences), Agra for compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court.

12. Copy of the judgement and order be provided to learned counsel for appellant and to the learned AGA as per rules.

Order Date :- 30.7.2025

C. MANI

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)