Chattisgarh High Court
Shiv Ram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 2669 of 2000
Shiv Ram S/o Ram Dhani Gupta aged about 43 years, R/o
Near Bus Stand Farasgaon, P.S. Farasgaon, District-Bastar,
M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh).
---- Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, PL.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board
20/09/2021
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.1999 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, M.P., in Special Case No.
5/1998 whereby, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant
and sentenced him as under :-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 3 r/w 7(1)A(2) of R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- in
Essential Commodities default of payment additional imprisonment
Act, 1955. for 3 months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.1998, P.S. Beru (PW-
5) was received a secret information that near Anand Dhaba a man
in possession of Kerosene is waiting for any transport. He had
reached the spot and enquired, when the appellant failed to
produce any documents for the said possession. He seized 140 liter
Kerosene from the possession of the appellant and arrested him. It
was further alleged that the said kerosene was for the purpose of
distribution through Public Distribution Scheme. Since the appellant
was not having license so he was put for trial.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution
has examined as many as 5 witnesses. Statement of the
accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and
pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.1999, learned Special
Judge, Bastar has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the
offence under Section 3 r/w 7(1)A(2) of Essential Commodities Act
and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.
1000/- in default of payment additional imprisonment for 3 months.
Hence, the present appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record including the impugned judgment.
6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the
appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment
and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only.
According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the
year 1998, and thereby more than 23 years have rolled by since
then. He is aged about more than 65 years. The appellant is in jail
more than one month, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would
be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced
to the period already undergone by him.
7. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to this
proposition.
8. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence
of the witnesses Anoop Nag (PW-1), M.R. Suryavanshi (PW-4) and
P. S. Beru (PW-5), establishes the involvement of the
accused/applicant in the crime in question and stands proved
beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not see any illegality in
the findings recorded by the Court below as regards conviction of
the appellant under Section 3 r/w 7(1)A(2) of Essential
Commodities Act.
9. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the
incident had taken place in the year 1998, and further that the
appellant had already remained in jail for more than one month and
the appellant is aged about more than 65 years, therefore, I am of
the view that ends of justice would be served, if the sentence
imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the conviction of the appellant, he is sentenced to the period
already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds
shall stand discharged.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
H. L. Sahu
