Dal Chand vs State Of U.P. on 2 April, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 
Reserved on 08.01.2026
 
Delivered on 02.04.2026
 

 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1506 of 1987
 

 
Dal Chand
 

 

 
..Appellant(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
State of U.P.
 

 

 
..Respondent(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Appellant(s)
 
:
 
Palok Basu, Vikram Shah Sisodia
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
A.G.A.
 

 

 
Court No. - 92 
 

 
HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.

1. Present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.05.1987 passed by Session Judge, Mathura in Criminal Case No. 12 of 1987, convicting the appellant under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and Clause 3(1) of U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order of 1962 and sentencing him to undergo 6 month R.I.

Factual Matrix

2. Shorn of the detail, on 31.07.1986 at about 5:00 p.m., a raid/visit was conducted at the shop of accused Dal Chand, situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sahpau, District Mathura, by Sri Rama Kant Bhatnagar, District Supply Officer, along with Sri Satya Prakash Sharma, Supply Inspector, and other officials on the basis of secret information regarding illegal storage of controlled commodities. During the inspection, about 18 quintals and 72 kilograms of khandasari sugar was found stored in the shop, but the accused failed to produce any valid licence under the U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, and the licence produced by him for manufacturing boora issued by the Health Department was not valid for storing such quantity of sugar; during the visit, co-accused Chotey Lal allegedly fled from the spot.

3. Based on the written report which was marked and exhibited as Ex.Ka-1, FIR was lodged against two accused persons namely Dal Chand and Chotey Lal. The said FIR has been marked and exhibited as Ex.Ka-4.

4. Consequent to lodging of the FIR, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan which was marked and exhibited as Ex.Ka-6.

5. The Investigation Officer after completing the investigation filed charge-sheet against the four accused persons as named above under sections 3/7 of E.C. Act. After the submission of chargesheet, the learned District Magistrate, Mathura, gave sanction for the prosecution of the accused under 3/7 E.C. Act for the contravention of the provisions of Clause 3(1) of the U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962.

6. At the trial to prove their case, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses. At first, Sri Rama Kant Bhatnagar, District Supply Officer, Mathura, was examined as P.W.-1. He stated that on 31-07-1986 at about 5:00 p.m., acting on information given by a mukhbir, he, along with Supply Inspector Sri Satya Prakash Sharma and other supply officials, went to inspect the shop of the accused situated within the jurisdiction of P.S. Sahpau, District Mathura. According to him, the accused Dal Chand was found present at the shop. During inspection, about 18 quintals and 72 kilograms of khandasari sugar were found stored in the shop. When asked to produce the licence required under the U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, the accused failed to produce the same. He, however, produced a licence issued by the Health Department for manufacturing boora, which was not a valid licence for storing or dealing in khandasari sugar. He further stated that the necessary report regarding the incident was lodged and the matter was reported for further legal action.

7. After this, Sri Satya Prakash Sharma, Supply Inspector, was examined as P.W.-2. He supported the statement of P.W.-1 and stated that he accompanied the District Supply Officer during the raid/visit conducted on the shop of the accused. He deposed that during the inspection, khandasari sugar exceeding the permissible quantity was found stored in the premises of the accused Dal Chand. The accused could not produce any licence required under the U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962. He further stated that he prepared the written report and recovery memo regarding the seizure of the sugar and submitted the same to the police for registration of the case.

8. Thereafter, Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma, Sub-Inspector, was examined as P.W.-3. He stated that after receiving the report, he took up the investigation of the case. During the investigation, he prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected other necessary documents. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-7) against the accused under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of the provisions of the U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962.

9. The prosecution also proved the sanction order granted by the District Magistrate, Mathura, for prosecuting the accused under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

10. After the statement of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 CrPC, in which the accused persons have denied the evidence against them and told themselves to be innocent. They produced four defence witnesses in defence and examined them.

11. Firstly, Murari Lal was examined as D.W.-1. He stated that accused Chhotey Lal was confined in the hospital from 25-07-1986 to 31-07-1986, and therefore he was not present at the spot on the date of occurrence. Then, Lalit Kumar was examined as D.W.-2, he stated that the accused Dal Chand was running a shoe manufacturing shop and was falsely implicated in the case. After this, Hukum Chand (D.W.-3) was examined, he worked as a Munim with traders from whom the sugar was allegedly purchased, but his testimony did not materially support the defence case. Lastly, Rajendra Kumar was examined as D.W. 4 in support of the defence but his testimony was not found reliable.

12. Based on aforesaid oral and documentary evidences produced by both the sides, the learned trial court, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

13. Heard Sri Vikram Shah Sisodia, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A-1 assisted by Ms. Harshita Rani A.G.A, for the state.

Arguments on behalf of Appellant

14. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is wholly unsustainable in law, since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is contended that the alleged recovery is based solely on official witnesses, and no independent public witness was associated with the raid, thereby rendering the prosecution's case doubtful.

15. Learned counsel further submitted that the co-accused has been acquitted on the same set of evidence, and in the absence of any distinguishing material, the conviction of the present appellant is arbitrary and legally untenable. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish exclusive and conscious possession of the alleged commodity with the appellant.

16. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was a dealer within the meaning of the U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, and therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence are not satisfied. It is also submitted that the presumption under Section 10-C of the Essential Commodities Act has been wrongly invoked without establishing foundational facts.

17. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant is approximately 61 years of age and is an elderly person. Considering his advanced age, physical condition, and the overall circumstances of the case, the appellant be extended the benefit of probation in the interest of justice.

Arguments on behalf of State

18. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and there are no material contradictions or inconsistencies which may discredit the prosecution version.

19. Learned A.G.A submitted that the mere absence of independent public witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case, as the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded solely on that ground, particularly when no malafide has been alleged or proved against them.

20. Learned AGA further submits that the appellant was found in possession of quantity exceeding the prescribed limit, and he failed to produce any valid licenceunder the U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, thereby clearly attracting liability under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Observation

21. As far as the case of the appellant on merits is concerned. The stock about 18 quintals and 72 kilograms of khandasari sugar was found stored in the shop and the appellant also failed to produce any valid licence under the U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, and the licence produced by him for manufacturing boora issued by the Health Department was not valid for storing such quantity of sugar, hence, this was violation of said order.

22. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant submits to extend the benefit of Probation to the appellant, therefore, at the first instance, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Section 4 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Section 4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.

(4) The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the Court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.

(5) The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.

23. The reliance placed on the judgment of the case Tarak Nath Keshari versus state of West Bengal (2024)13 SCC 384

12. Even if there is minimum sentence provided in Section 7 of the EC Act, in our opinion, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of probation, the EC Act, being of the year 1955 and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being later. Even if minimum sentence is provided in the EC Act, 1955 the same will not be a hurdle for invoking the applicability of provisions of the Proba-tion of Offenders Act, 1958. Reference can be made to a judg-ment of this Court in Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab.

That Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratan Lal vs State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 444, while discussing the purpose and object of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, has observed in para no. 4, as follows:

"4. The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years, absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the condition laid down in the appropriate provision of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act."

24. That Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is applicable where a person is found guilty of committing an offence where punishment is neither life sentence nor death. The Court may release such an accused on probation of good conduct on his furnishing a bond as mentioned in the Section. The Court in applying the provisions of this section is also required to consider the circumstances of the case, character of the offender and nature of the offence before exercising its discretion.

25. However, the case is made out for grant of benefit of probation to the appellant for the reason that the offence was committed more than 39 years back. He shall get the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Consequently, the appellant shall file two sureties with personal bonds to the effect that he shall not commit any offence and shall observe good behaviour and shall maintain peace. If there is breach of any of the conditions, he will subject himself to undergo sentence before the magistrate. The bonds and sureties aforesaid be filled by the accused person within two months from the date of the judgment as per law and rules.

26. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

27. Office is directed to send the certified copy of the judgment along with lower court record to the court concerned.

(Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)

April 2, 2026