Court No. - 77
Reserved on : 4.10.2021 Delivered on : 28.10.2021 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 91 of 1993 Appellant :- Badri Narain Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- M.S. Pipersenia Counsel for Respondent :- AGA
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. In the present Criminal Appeal, challenge is made to the judgement dated 24.12.1992 passed by the Sri A.N. Dwivedi, Special Judge (Essential of Commodities Act) Jhansi, in Special Case No. 1 of 1990, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Moth, district Jhansi, whereby Trial Court convicted the accused- appellant under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2500/-.
2. Brief facts of the present case is that accused- appellant was running a shop of food grains in the name and style of M/s SK Enterprises and its licence was suspended on 18.2.1989 by a Competent Authority. On 14.3.1989, at about 2:00 pm, Marketing Inspector of area concerned inspected the premises of accused-appellant and found that shop was open and a worker (Palledar) was present who, later on, escaped from the spot. On inspection of stock register (Sattabahi) maintained by shopkeeper, it was found that on 13.3.1989, details of sale and purchase of food grains were mentioned therein. Register was taken into possession, and submitted tehrir before the police station concerned by the Officer concerned. Matter was investigated by Investigating Officer of Police Station concerned and after due formalities, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant.
3. Learned trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the prosecution case proved against the appellant and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the present criminal appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant, learned AGA for State and perused the materials available on record.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the accused- appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal on merit, rather he pressed the appeal on the point of sentence only. Although, appellant is innocent and he has been in jail for a considerable period during investigation and trial. He further states that the sentence of appellant may be reduced to period already undergone and fine, to which learned AGA has no objection. It is further submitted that rigorous imprisonment of three months has been awarded to the appellant and after a long time, sending appellant in jail would not meet the purpose of justice. Due to paucity of money, he is not contesting the case on merit. He is facing trial as well as appeal for a long and under these circumstances, sentence of the appellant may be reduced to minimum side.
6. Learned AGA opposed the appeal but has no objection to the aforesaid request.
7. On perusal of record, I found that trial court's judgement is well discussed and evidence establishes the prosecution case beyond doubt, hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed on merit. No reasons to hold that impugned judgment is in perverse matter.
8. So far as sentence is concerned, admittedly, the incident of this case is of year 1989 and more than 31 years has elapsed. The appellant is facing trial as well as appeal. It is obvious that during these years, he has suffered a great mental agony and harassment. He must have also incurred expenses defending himself during the entire period.
8. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and the manner in which, it was executed or committed. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
10. Looking all these circumstances, while considering the question of sentence, I feel it appropriate to reduce the sentence of accused-appellant.
11. Keeping in view the nature of allegations, applying the principles laid down in the different judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it is committed. I, dispose of the appeal but modify the impugned order of sentence in the following manner:-
(i) Conviction of accused-appellant under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is confirmed and maintained. Appeal is dismissed on merit.
(ii) Sentence of accused-appellant under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is modified and he is sentenced to substantive imprisonment of already undergone by the accused-appellant with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). In default of payment of fine in the trial court concerned, he shall undergo for a period of three months simple imprisonment.
12. Appeal is disposed of with above terms.
13. Certify this judgement along with the lower court record to the court concerned for compliance.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Akram