NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice. Learned Counsel for the State accepts notice. Admit. Criminal Appeal No. 335/2001 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 124/98 whereby the learned Additional. Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by judgement dated 27.4.2001 and by a separate order of the same date was pleased to impose a sentence of three months with fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment, for 15 days.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant does not challenge the order of conviction on merits. He, however, submits that in the facts of the present case, the appellant ought to have been given the benefit of probation under Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code. and/or the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the offence was committed on 3/10/1996 for violating notification, which prohibited storing of edible oil beyond a particular measure. However, this notification was withdrawn on 10/11/1997. He submits that the offence, it at all, now if of technical nature and does not warrant imprisonment.

(3.) He draws my attention to the judgment of the Orissa High Court in T. Susila Patra and Another v. State, 1987 (1) Crimes 654, decided on 22/01/1987, where the Court, relying upon an earlier judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Cr.LJ. 1218, held that in an offence triable under the Essential Commodities Act, although the minimum sentence is prescribed, yet there is no bar to giving benefit under Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code. or the Probation of Of- fenders Act. Learned Counsel for the State submits that in view of the nature and sentence of the offence committed, it is a fit case where Court can exercise its power and give the accused the benefit under Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code.