Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Bhumi Sdudhar Chemical Ind.Etc vs State Of Pb on 10 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033442
CRA-S-358 & 359-SB-2003 -1-
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 10.03.2025
1. CRA-S-358-SB-2003 (O&M)
M/s Kanshi Ram Mehar Chand and others
... Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
2. CRA-S-359-SB-2003 (O&M)
M/s Bhumi Sudhar and another
... Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Jugansh Goyal, Advocate for
Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate
for the appellants (in both appeals).
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*******
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2025 05:22:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033442
CRA-S-358 & 359-SB-2003 -2-
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This common judgment shall dispose of aforementioned two
appeals preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2003 and
the order of sentence of even date passed by learned Special Judge, Moga, in
Complaint bearing SC No.RT 31 of 1998 under Clause 19(i)(a) of Fertilizer
(Control) Order, 1985 (for short 'FC Order') and Section 7 of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') read with Section 12AA of EC
Act, vide which the appellants were convicted under Regulation 19(i)(a) of
FC Order issued under Section 3 of EC Act and punishable under Section 7
read with Section 12AA of EC Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each
along with default mechanism.
2. In nutshell, facts of the case are that M/s Kanshi Ram Mehar
Chand, Moga, a partnership firm of Jagdish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, was a
dealer of manufacturing firm M/s Bhumi Sudhar Chemical Industries and
appellant Ashok Kumar Jain was the responsible officer of the said
manufacturing firm. On 30.06.1992, Fertilizer Inspector Harnek Singh along
with Naib Singh, Soil Testing Officer, Moga-II visited the shop of M/s
Kanshi Ram Mehar Chand, Moga, a partnership firm of Jagdish Kumar and
Pawan Kumar and appellant Jagdish Kumar was present at the spot. The
Fertilizer Inspector disclosed his identity and he drew the sample of zinc
sulphate 21%. After completing the due procedure, the sample was sent to
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033442
Central Fertilizer Quality Control and Training Institute, Faridabad on
03.07.1992 and on receiving the analysis report, it was found containing only
20.43% P2 05 instead of 21%. Hence, the complaint (supra).
3. After assessing the material available on record, learned trial
Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, vide judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence dated 07.02.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellants preferred aforementioned two separate appeals before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.2
Ashok Kumar Jain, in CRA-S-359-SB-2003, is more than 67 years of age
and he is suffering from diabetics. The judgment passed by learned trial
Court is based on conjectures and surmises. It is further submitted that
appellants No.2 & 3 Jagdish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, in CRA-S-358-SB-
2003, respectively and appellant No.2 Ashok Kumar Jain, in CRA-S-359-
SB-2003, don't have any criminal antecedents and they are bread earners of
their respective families. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that
the bags, from which the samples were drawn, were stitched by the
manufacturer. The appellants are facing trial for the last 32 years and
therefore, learned trial Court ought to have considered the case of appellants
No.2 & 3 Jagdish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, in CRA-S-358-SB-2003,
respectively and appellant No.2 Ashok Kumar Jain, in CRA-S-359-SB-2003,
for releasing them on probation under Section 361 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') read with Sections 3 & 4 of the
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033442
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'PO Act').
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by
learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the appellants were
convicted by learned trial Court based on correct appreciation of the facts
and the law. As such, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that appellants
No.2 & 3 Jagdish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, in CRA-S-358-SB-2003, are
more than 60 years of age, respectively and appellant No.2 Ashok Kumar
Jain, in CRA-S-359-SB-2003, is more than 67 years of age and they are
suffering from various age related ailments.
7. Sections 3 & 4 of PO Act empowers the Courts to release the
convicts, if deemed appropriate in view of circumstances of the case.
Similarly, Sections 360 & 361 of Cr.P.C. [now Sections 401 & 402 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS')] also allows
the Courts to release convicts on probation for good conduct in the cases and
circumstances mentioned therein. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
(2022) 6 SCC 722 speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held as
under:-
"6....having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents
against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the
benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that
view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033442
sentence imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the
appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct....."
8. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakhvir
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2021) 2 SCC 763 speaking through Justice
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, has held as under:-
"6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its
amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on
probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to
imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation
and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant
members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious
effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved."
9. Further still, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC
100 has opined as follows:
"15. We find that the attention of the Court was not drawn to
sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360
will not affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar laws
for the time being in force for the treatment, training or
rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Still further, Section 4 of the
1958 Act has a non obstante clause, giving overriding effect
over any other provisions of law.
16. The conjoint reading of the provisions of both the statutes,
we find that the provisions of Section 360 of the Code are in
addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act or the Children Act,
1960, or any other law for the time being in force for the
treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders"
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishnu Deo Shah Vs. State of
West Banal, AIR 1979 SC 964 has laid down that it is obligatory on the part
of the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033442
Cr.P.C. (now Section 401 of BNSS), if he is not convicted for an offence
punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and additionally, if he
is not a previous convict. The overarching object of the provision contained
in Sections 4 & 6 of PO Act and Sections 360 & 361 of Cr.P.C. (now
Sections 401 & 402 of BNSS) is to provide an opportunity to the first time
offenders to reform and not expose them in association with the hardened
and habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, both the
aforementioned appeals are disposed of, in the following terms:-
(i) The judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2003 passed by learned
Special Judge, Moga, convicting the appellants, is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 07.02.2003 passed by learned
Special Judge, Moga is modified to the extent of granting the
concession of probation to the appellants for good conduct.
(iii) Appellants No.2 & 3 Jagdish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, in
CRA-S-358-SB-2003, respectively and appellant No.2 Ashok
Kumar Jain, in CRA-S-359-SB-2003, shall be released on
probation for good conduct on furnishing personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- each with a surety for the same amount within four
weeks, after furnishing an undertaking to keep the peace and
good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of
concerned trial Court.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033442
(iv) Appellants No.2 & 3 Jagdish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, in
CRA-S-358-SB-2003, respectively and appellant No.2 Ashok
Kumar Jain, in CRA-S-359-SB-2003, shall remain under the
supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the
aforesaid period. In case of failure to comply with the said
directions or commit breach of the undertaking rendered by
them, they shall be called upon to undergo the sentence imposed
upon them by learned trial Court.
12. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
10.03.2025 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
