Chattisgarh High Court
Girwar Singh vs The State Of C.G on 29 June, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 980 of 2001
Girwar Singh S/o Balbhadra Singh aged about 33 years, R/o
Palgashi P.S. Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Lalit Jangde, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
29/06/2022
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2001 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, C.G. in
Special Criminal Case No. 6/1998 whereby, the learned Special
Judge convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable
under Sections 3 r/w Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act,
1955, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of
Rs. 5000/-, plus default stipulation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.06.1998, the accused Girwar
Singh was a seller of Government Fair Price Shop Village Gumgara
and Parsodikala. Accused Girwar Singh, who was distributing rice
from Govt. Fair Price shop Parsodikala to the people below the
poverty line, illegally sold it to accused Ramkumar. Accused
Ramkumar and Chandrika abetted the seller Girwar Singh to sell 7
bags of rice of the society. Tej Kumar, Rajaram, Kariya Ram, Naval,
residents of village Gumgara Khurd saw that Ramlal and
Vishwanath were carrying four bags of rice from the shop on a
cycle at around 10:00 pm on the night of 12.06.1998, to the
house of Ramkumar. Tejram and others reported the matter to the
police station. During the investigation, a sack of society's rice,
was seized from the house of Ramkumar on the basis of the
accused Ramkumar's memo. The distribution register and stock
register of Parsodikala's Govt. Fair Price Shop were also seized
from the accused Girwar Singh. The charge list for providing the
charge of Parsodikala's Govt. Fair Price Shop to the accused
Girwar Singh was also seized. After completion of the
investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges were framed by
the trial Court against the accused/appellant under Sections 3 r/w
Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the
accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled 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 29.09.2001, learned Special Judge
has convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 3 r/w Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955,
and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of
Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation. Hence, the present appeal.
5. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the
revision 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 24 years have rolled by since
then. He is aged about 57 years. The appellant has already
remained in jail for more than 50 days, and no useful purpose
would be served in again sending him to jail, 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.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record including the impugned judgment.
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 Tejkumar (PW-1), Rajaram (PW-2), Kariya (PW-3),
Naval (PW-4), Sanjay (PW-5), Shyam Prasad Dubey (PW-6),
Vishwanath (PW-7), Ramlal (PW-8), Jagjeevan (PW-9), Bahal Singh
(PW-10), S.K. Sharma (PW-11), Sukhlal (PW-12) and J.P. Gupta
(PW-13), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in
the crime in question 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 of
Essential Commodities Act.
9. As regards sentence, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act,
1955 provides as under:-
(ii) in the case of any other order, with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than three months but which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine: 1[provided
that the court may, for any adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose
a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than
three months;]
Keeping in view, the aforesaid proviso and the facts that
incident had taken place in the year 1998, and further that the
appellant has already remained in jail for more than 50 days,
therefore, his sentence is liable to be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
1 Proviso was omitted by Act 18 of 1981, sec. 7(a) as amended by Act 34 of 1993, sec. 3 for a period of
fifteen years which now stands restored after the expiry of fifteen years. See Appendix -Section 7(a)
Essential Commodities (special Provisions) Act, 1981 (18 of 1981).
10. In view of the above consideration, 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
