Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 22 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010235142013
2025:GAU-AS:13574
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./439/2013
RAJESH SARMAH
S/O PRAHLAD SARMAH, R/O A.T. ROAD, ADABARI, P.S. JALUKBARI, DIST-
KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.T SOM, MR.H DAS,MS.B BHUYAN,MS.S KALITA,MR.R
DE,MR.U HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM,,,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
22.09.2025
None appears for the petitioner on call.
2. Heard Mr M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the
State respondents.
3. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the Judgment and Order dated
27.12.2012, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), II, Kamrup, in C R Case
No. 1824/2008, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955, and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 9 (nine)
Page No.# 2/5
months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), in default, to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 2 (two) months.
4. The petitioner has also assailed the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2013, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup, in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2013,
upholding the conviction of the petitioner, however, reducing the sentence to that of Simple
Imprisonment for 3 (three) months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
Only), in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month.
5. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial is that the petitioner, herein, is the
owner of a tea-stall, operated in the name of - "M/s Balaji Mistan Bhandar", near Adabari
Bus Stand, Guwahati. On 17.07.2012, the Inspector of Food And Civil Supplies, Kamrup,
conducted a raid in the said tea stall and found the petitioner to be using a domestic LPG
Cylinder for preparation of food articles, which according to the opposite party was in
contravention with the provisions of Section 3 (1) (c) of the Liquified Petroleum Gas
(Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. The said order of 2000 was so framed
under the provisions of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On conclusion of
the investigation in the matter, a complaint case being CR Case No. 1824/2008, under
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, was registered against the petitioner, herein,
before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), II, Kamrup. On taking
of cognizance of the offence by the learned trial Court, summons came to be issued to the
petitioner, herein, and accordingly, he entered appearance in this proceeding.
5.1. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the charge as originally framed in the
matter was altered and thecharge against the petitioner under Section 7 was altered to that
under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
6. The learned trial Court upon conclusion of the trial and on appreciating the evidences
coming on record, was pleased vide Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2013, to convict the
Page No.# 3/5
appellant, herein, under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and on
his such conviction, sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 9 (nine) months,
and further to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten months), in default, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for further 2 (two) months .
7. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved with his conviction by the learned trial Court,
assailed the same before the learned appellate Court, by way of instituting Criminal Appeal
No. 41 of 2013. The appellate Court upon considering the materials available on record and
also appreciating the evidences coming on record, during the trial, was pleased vide
Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2013, to uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein,
under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
8. Upon drawing the said conclusion, the learned appellate Court was pleased to modify
the sentencing of the appellant and reduced the same to that of Simple Imprisonment for 3
(three) months and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default, to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for further 1 (one) month.
9. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also
perused the materials available on record.
10. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidences brought on record, passed the
Judgment and Order dated 27.12.2013. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by
the learned trial Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 27.12.2013, and on a perusal,
thereof, finds that the same are supported by the evidences coming on record and no
infirmity thereon, is found by this Court. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner,
herein, by the learned trial Court would not mandate an interference. This Court has also
perused the conclusions drawn by the learned appellate Court vide Judgment and Order
dated 30.09.2013 and on a perusal of the same, finds that the same to be supported by the
evidences coming on record in the trial and accordingly, no infirmity having been found
Page No.# 4/5
therein, the conclusions would also not mandate an interference by this Court.
11. Having upheld the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court, this
Court finds that the learned Trial Court, while considering the sentence to be imposed upon
the petitioner, had considered the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,
however, by noticing the nature of the offence committed by the appellant, herein, had
refused to extend the benefit under the Act of 1958 to the petitioner, herein. This Court
notices that the offence involved in the matter was committed by the petitioner on
17.07.2007. Long 18 (eighteen) years have, thereafter, passed since the date of
commission of the said offence. The petitioner is not found to have committed an
offence of similar nature, either prior to one so committed to him on 17.07.2009, and/or
to have committed a similar offence during the pendency of the proceedings involved.
12. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning since the date of commission of the
offence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein is entitled to be
extended with the benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and accordingly,
the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that effect and it is provided that instead of
sending the appellant to jail, he should be given the benefit under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Court, having only modified the sentence
pertaining to imprisonment, the sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only), in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 2 (two) months ,
as imposed by the learned Trial Court, is not being interfered with and the petitioner is
required to pay the same.
13. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant, herein, will file 2 (two) sureties to the
tune of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each, along with personal bond
before the learned trial Court, i.e., the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate (S), II, Kamrup, and undertake to the effect that the petitioner shall maintain
Page No.# 5/5
peace and good behaviour during the period of 1 (one) year from the date of filing of the
bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioner, within a period of 1 (one) month
from today. The petitioner shall also, along with submission of the bond, deposit the fine
amount, as required, hereinabove.
14. With the above observations and directions, the present revision petitoin stands
disposed of.
15. Registry to send down the Trial Court Records, forthwith, along with a copy of this
order for information and necessary action.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
