Court No. - 78
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 108 of 1984 Appellant :- State Respondent :- Narendra Kr. Gupta Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A. Counsel for Respondent :- S.K. Yadav Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
1. This government appeal on behalf of the State of U.P. under Section 377 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.09.1983 passed by Special Judge, Moradabad in Case No. 8/9/83. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of U.P. against the accused for enhancement of the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. The impugned order reads as under:-
“The accused is convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 150/-, under Section 30/7 of E.C. Act. He shall deposit the amount of fine within four days, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. The accused on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged on depositing fine of Rs. 150/-.”
2. It appears that in the impugned order “Section 30/7” has wrongly been written. It must be “Section 3/7”.”
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11th October, 1982 the accused was found running a shop on Jail road, Moradabad. The Area Rationing Officer inspected the said shop of the accused and found that no list of articles kept in the fair price shop was not maintained or shown pasted at the shop by him. It was also found by the Inspector that no list of the stock kept in the shop was maintained by him.
4. The matter was investigated against him after lodging the First Information Report in the concerned police station. Having been found guilty of not complying with the provisions of Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, charge sheet was submitted against the accused.
5. During the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and urged to be forgiven on the basis of lenient view. He also submitted before the trial court that he had recently opened the shop and was not aware of the requirements of law. It was also submitted by him that he was a young boy of twenty years. After going through the prosecution case as well as the submissions made by the accused, the trial court took a lenient view taking into consideration his young age and also taking into 1 consideration that he had recently started his business and convicted him sentencing to a fine of Rs. 150/- to be deposited within four days.
6. The State appellant had filed this appeal for enhancement of the punishment and the matter has been pending since 1984 and there is a provision in Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act that Court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months and the Trial Court considering the age of the accused and considering him a new entrant in the small business of shopkeeping, imposed a lesser punishment, which cannot be said to be inconsistent with the provision made in Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
7. The learned AGA appearing for the State appellant could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.
8. Having taken into consideration the impugned judgment and order, having considered the submission made by the learned AGA appearing for the appellant, this Court does not deem it fit to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. The impugned judgment is just and proper and is based on the provision of law. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
11. Lower Court Record, if any, be sent to the concerned trial court immediately.
Order Date :- 28.9.2021 LBY Digitally signed by LAL BAHADUR YADAV Date: 2022.03.07 13:32:07 IST Reason:
Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad