SAVALDAS GHUMAMAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-original convict (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31st March, 1998 passed by learned Special Judge, Sabarkanth at Himmatnagar, in Summary Case No.11 of 1993, whereby he has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(d) and Section 7(a)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) EARLIER on 09th March, 2011, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, called for the Report of the Probation Officer.

(3.) TODAY also, Mr.Joshi has contended that the appellant is an innocent person and he is not the habitual offender. The second fold of argument is that the alleged wrong was traced in the month of Febraury, 1993; criminal complaint was filed in the month of July, 1993; the judgment and order was passed in the year 1998 and today after a lapse of 13 years, present appeal is listed for final hearing before this Court. He, therefore, contended that this Court may give benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant and he may not be asked to go to prison after a lapse of about 18 years from the date of incident. He has placed reliance on various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court and submitted that merely because the legislature has provided the minimum punishment of three months, it is not always necessary that the appellant should be sent to jail and he can be given advantage of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.