Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar And And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 27 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 611 of 2002
BETWEEN:-
RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, S/O LAXMINARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION : BUSINESS, R/O
OBEDULLAGANJ, DISTRICT RAISEN, MADHYA
PRADESH.
.....APPELLANT
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE P.S.
OBEDULLAGANJ, DISTRICT RAISEN, MADHYA
PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NARENDRA SINGH LODHI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing, this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.04.2002
passed by Special Judge, Raisen in Special Case No.4/1998, whereby the
learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under
the Madhya Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and
Restriction on Hoarding) Order 1991 readwith Section 3/7 Essential
Commodities Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months and fine of Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand).
2. Initially, the case was against two accused persons but accused-
appellant No.2 Laxminarayan has expired during pendency of this appeal.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that case against the appellant is that
his Food-grain shop was inspected on 04.05.1998 ad it was found that as per
the stock register, there should be 457 quintals of Food-grains but physically
657 Quintals of Food-grains was found in the Stock. The Food-grains
purchased on 04.05.1998 itself were not found entered in the Stock Register
and proper display of Stock and price list was not found in the Shop. It was
alleged against the appellant that there is violation of Madhya Pradesh
Scheduled Commodities Traders (Licencing and Restriction on Hoarding)
Order 1991.
4. This Court has gone through the evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Premnarayan PW-3
Laxminarayan Maheshwari, PW5 Revenue Inspector, PW 7 Urmila Shukla and
other prosecution witnesses. This Court has carefully gone through the
evidence of the material witnesses and eye-witnesses.
5. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is
found that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of the
accused-appellant are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in proving
the case against the accused-appellant. There is nothing in cross examination of
the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus, there is nothing in
the said findings of the trial court that can be said to be erroneous or perverse,
warranting interference by this Court in Appellate jurisdiction.
6. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court is
hereby upheld.
7. There is a minimum sentence of three months as per Section 7 (1)(a)(ii)
of Essential Commodities Act and as per proviso, the Court can impose a
sentence of imprisonment of a term less than three months for an adequate or
special reasons. The proviso was omitted by Act 18 of 1981 for a period of
Fifteen years but now stands restored after expiry of Fifteen years. As per
Section 7 (2)(B) of the Act of 1955, the fact that offence has caused no
substantial harm to the general public or to any individual shall be adequate and
special reason for awarding the sentence of imprisonment for less than
minimum term.
8. In the present case, there is no harm alleged to have been caused to
general public or to any individual. Even as per the FIR, no such allegation is
mentioned that any harm has been caused to general public or to any individual.
Thus, it is a fit case where sentence less than minimum sentence can be
awarded to the appellant.
9. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The
appellant/accused is first offender and the incident took place in the year 1998
and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2002, the
accused/appellant has been under trial or appearing before the Court as
condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on record
regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the long
period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Court
deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already
undergone by him (Fifteen days) and to enhance the fine amount from
Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.
10. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction is
maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for the period he has already undergone (Fifteen days), subject to
depositing the further fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) within a
period of three months from today.
11. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court
is not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the original
sentence would come into operation and appellant shall be taken into custody
or he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence of six months as
awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
12. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
13. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
14. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
15. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
