POPATLAL B GODANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri K. B. Pujara, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-orig accused-convict and Shri A. J. Desai, learned additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. The appellant-orig accused is present in the Court today and on instructions received from the appellant, Shri Pujara states that at present the appellant is doing mainly the work of distributing milk pouches in Bapunagar Area and nearby vicinity, and he has left the business of edible oil and oil seeds for the last about 20 years; especially on cancellation of his licence by the civil Supply Department and he has diverted himself to some other activity as aforesaid. It is submitted that when the aforesaid offence was committed by the appellant, he was a young man of 23 years.

(2.) SHRI Pujara, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-convict, has taken this Court through the nature of evidence led by prosecution and the basic case placed before the trial Court against the appellant. The court would like to state the prosecution case in brief as under :

(3.) IN the present case, the shop of the appellant-convict was inspected by the Civil Supply Department on 10th July, 1985. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge, even if is considered, is dated 16th March, 1992. The appellant faced trial for about seven years. Technically speaking, the stock recovered from the adjacent shop to the shop of the appellant was much less than 5 quintals prescribed for the edible oil and oil seeds. So even as per the Civil Supply Department and the policy, the case of the appellant would not fall under the category of grave case of violation of the Order, 1981 issued under Section 3 of the Act. The Court is not concerned with the labels of various brands recovered from the said shop because on that count the appellant was neither prosecuted nor held guilty. When the appellant has settled in his life within the period of these 21 years, the Court can positively exercise powers vested with the Court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. When the conviction is not challenged and the matter is argued on the point of quantum of punishment and request to grant benefit under the scheme of Probation of Offenders' Act, is one of the alternative arguments while making submissions on the point of quantum of punishment, this Court is inclined to grant the request as prayed for which is acceptable and therefore, this alternative argument is hereby accepted.