Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Rajendra Kumar on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 99/1999
State
----Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, P.P.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
20/05/2022
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may
kindly be allowed and the accused respondent may kindly be
sentenced appropriately and adequately by enhancing the
sentence of the accused respondent."
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before the Court by learned
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-Appellant are that on
16.08.1994 the Enforcement Officer, Shri Ram Chandra, searched
the house of the respondent in the presence of his father, and
upon checking the tanker present in the house found 1000 litres
diesel present in it, and that the respondent did not have a bill /
receipt for the same. The Enforcement Officer took three samples
of the diesel so found, and after finding that the respondent was
in illegal possesion of the said diesel, a report was submitted at
(Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:40:09 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-99/1999]
the Police Station, Hinduman Kot, and a case was registered
against the respondent under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities
Act, 1955. Subsequently, the chargesheet was filed and charges
were framed against the respondent. Upon trial, the learned Court
below convicted respondent for the offence under the
aforementioned section but looking to the fact that it was the first
offence of the respondent and that the case had remained pending
for 3 years, when the impugned order was passed; deemed it fit
to award the accused-respondent with imprisonment upto rising of
the Court day, on that particular day, and with a fine of Rs. 500/-
in default of which he was to further undergo 7 days S.I., vide the
impugned judgment 02.12.1997.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the learned
Court below has erred in passing the impugned order, as it failed
to take into consideration the settled law, that provision of law laid
down in the proviso to Section 7(1) (A) sub-clause II which states
conferred powers upon the competent Court to reduce the
sentence that may be awarded to an accused therein, to under 3
months, which was deleted with effect from the year 1982.
Relevant portion of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 reads as follows:-
"7. Penalties
(1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3:
(a) he shall be punishable:
(i) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h)
or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and
shall also be liable to fine, and
(Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:40:09 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-99/1999]
(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:
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."
4. Learned Public Prosector submits that the sentence of the
respondent ought to be enchanced appropriately and adequately,
as the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact
that the accused-respondent accepted the charges levelled against
him and the offence commited by him under the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 is an offence which affects the society as a
whole.
4. None present for the respondent.
5. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the
record of the case.
6. This Court observes, that the submission so put forth by the
learned Public Prosecutor, that powers so bestowed upon the
competent Court, as under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of Clause
(a) of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was
apparently omitted by Act 18 of 1981, Section 7, for fifteen years
w.e.f. 01.09.1982. This moratorium period of 15 years would
therefore expire on 01.09.1997.
7. This Court is conscious of the fact that while the date of
incident was 16.08.1994,the date on which the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned order, was on 02.12.1997 and after the
moratorium period had expired, and therefore the proviso, as
(Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:40:09 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-99/1999]
aforementioned, was therefore in operation when the learned Trial
Court passed the impugned order.
8. It is not the case of the prosecution that the learned Court
below has failed to record special or adequate reasons in reducing
the minimum period of sentence that may be awarded to an
accused under the Act of 1955, and therefore, this Court does not
deem it necessary to delve into a discussion of the same.
9. This Court, in light of the above made observations, finds
that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below does
not suffer from any legal infirmity, and therefore does not warrant
any interference from this Court.
10. This Court, therefore, dismisses the appeal and upholds and
affirms the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.
Accordingly, all pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
33-Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
