Rajasthan High Court
Rajesh Kuamar vs State (2023:Rj-Jp:23032) on 14 September, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:23032]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 191/1989
Rajesh Kuamar son of Shri Babu Lal Jain, aged 23 years, R/o
Bandikui, District Jaipur
----Accused-Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nagendra Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
14/09/2023
This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant
(for brevity "the appellant") against the judgment dated
29.04.1989 passed by the learned Special Court (Essential
Commodities Act), Jaipur (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in
Criminal Case No.5/1987 (summary trial): State of Rajasthan
versus Rajesh Kumar whereby, the appellant has been convicted
and sentenced as under:-
Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
(for brevity, "the Act of 1955"):- 4 months' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of ₹1,000/-; in default whereof: 3 months'
simple imprisonment.
The relevant facts in brief are that on an inspection dated
24.05.1985 by the Enforcement Inspector of the fair price shop of
the appellant under order of the District Supply Officer, Jaipur,
various irregularities were found whereupon, an FIR dated
[2023:RJ-JP:23032] (2 of 4) [CRLA-191/1989]
06.07.1985 (Ex-P-18) was registered against him with the Police
Station Bandikui under Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955. After
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him. The trial Court
narrated substance of accusation under Section 3/7 of the Act of
1955 to the appellant who pleaded not guilty. After summary trial,
the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated
hereinabove.
Eschewing the merits of the case, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the incident is of about 38 years old, the
appellant is aged about 60 years with no previous conviction and
prays for the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 (for brevity, "the Act of 1958"). He submits that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, vide judgment dated
10.05.2023 in case of Tarak Nath Keshari Vs. State of West
Bengal: Criminal Appeal No.1444/2023, held that the
appellant convicted of sentence under Section 3/7 of the Act of
1955 is entitled for the benefit of probation despite there being
minimum sentence.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
Heard. Considered.
The incident is of 24.05.1985, i.e., more than 38 years old.
The appellant was aged about 20-21 years at that time as is
reflected from findings of the learned trial Court vide Para no.36 of
the judgment dated 29.04.1989 and is aged about 60 years as on
date. Admittedly, he has no record of any previous conviction. He
has been awarded the substantive sentence of four months
rigorous imprisonment under Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955.
[2023:RJ-JP:23032] (3 of 4) [CRLA-191/1989]
Although, there is a bar under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 against
granting an accused benefit of probation where minimum sentence
is provided as is the situation herein as minimum sentence of
three months is provided; but, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
has, in case of Tarak Nath Keshari (supra), held as under:
"10.Even if there is minimum sentence provided
in Section 7 of the EC Act, in our opinion, the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of probation, the
EC Act, being of the year 1955 and the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 being later. Even if minimum
sentence is provided in the EC Act, 1955 the same
will not be a hurdle for invoking the applicability of
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in
Lakhvir Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors¹.
11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The
appellant is directed to be released on probation
under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 on entering into bond and two sureties each to
ensure that he will maintain peace and good
behaviour for the remaining part of his sentence,
failing which he can be called upon to serve the
sentence."
This court finds no reason not to extend the appellant benefit
of probation following the aforesaid precedential law.
Resultantly, the appeal is disposed of in terms that the
appeallant is released on probation under Section 4 of the Act of
1958. He shall file a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/-
together with two sureties each of ₹25,000/- for a period of two
years to the satisfaction to the learned Special Court (Essential
Commodities Act), Jaipur with a further stipulation that he shall
[2023:RJ-JP:23032] (4 of 4) [CRLA-191/1989]
appear and receive sentence when called upon during the
probation period and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of
good behaviour.
Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand
discharged accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/226
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
