Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2252 of 1984 Appellant :- Raj Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- P.N.Misra Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
1. The appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.1984 passed by Special Judge, Shahjahanpur in Special Case No.11 of 1984 (State Vs. Mohd. Yasin and others) convicting the appellant under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act and sentencing him to 4 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.400/-.
2. Heard Sri Apul Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated and convicted for the recovery of 85 bags wheat, 1 bag of gram, 1 bag of barlay, 1 bag of Masoor and 17 bags of paddy; that the appellant was bonafide carrier of the foodgrains which belonged to his relative Shyam Lal and were being carried for sale and has been wrongly convicted for the offence under Section 3/7 E.C. Act and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months with fine of Rs.400/- and in case of default in payment of fine with further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and submitted that the accused-appellant has failed to explain the custody of grains which were being carried by him in contravention of provisions of Section 3 of U.P. Foodgrains Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoardings Order) 1976 and committed an offence punishable under Section 317 of Essential Commodities Act.
5. Upon hearing Sri Apul Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State, I find that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned conviction order and there is no good ground to interfere with the impugned order of conviction passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Shahjahanpur.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submitted that accused-appellant is first offender and during the pendency of appeal due to default on the part of appellant non-bailable warrants were issued against him and he was taken into custody and remained for considerable period of sentence and in the circumstances he may be released on sentence of imprisonment already undergone or on probation by granting him benefit of provision of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
7. It is pertinent to mention that regarding the detention of appellant a report was called from C.J.M., Shahjahanpur and Jail Superintendent, Shahjahanpur and C.J.M., Shahjahanpur vide their reports dated 13.7.2018 have reported that appellant was taken into custody on 31.1.2018 and was released on bail on 19.5.2018 under orders of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Shahjahanpur.
8. Upon hearing the parties counsel and perusal of reports of C.J.M. and Jail Superintendent, Shahjahanpur, I find that in this 35 years old matter of incident dated 7.10.1983, appellant due to his default or otherwise has remained in custody for more than a period of 3½ months and even upon maintaining the conviction if the sentence is reduced, it will serve the ends of justice.
9. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed and partly dismissed.
10. The appeal is partly dismissed. The impugned order of conviction of accused-appellant under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act is upheld and confirmed. The appeal is partly allowed and the sentence is modified and reduced to the imprisonment for a period already undergone and fine of Rs.400/- and in case of default in payment of fine, he will undergo an additional period of simple imprisonment for 1 month.
11. The accused-appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender unless wanted in some other case or commits default in payment of fine.
12. The appellant shall deposit the fine within one month, failing which he shall undergo the additional period of imprisonment for which he will surrender before the trial court.
13. The material exhibits, if any, shall be disposed off after statutory period in accordance with rules.
14. Let lower court record be sent back to court below along with a copy of this order for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Kpy