SAVDAS RAJSI BHATU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are arising out of one judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28th January 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Special Case No. 3 of 1996, and therefore, the same are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant-orig. convict of Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-convict') has preferred the said appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the aforesaid judgment and order, whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellant guilty for the charge of offence punishable under Sections 15 and 18 (6) of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 1981') read with Sections 3 and 7 (1) (a) (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The appellant-convict has also been held guilt for breach of Section 5 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractices in Supply and Distribution) Order, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 1990') read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. It is ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently.

(3.) THE another appeal i. e. Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 1998 has been preferred by the appellant-State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for enhancement of sentence, and the grievance of the appellant-State is that the appellant-convict has not been sentenced adequately, otherwise he deserves more severe punishment than imposed. So this Court by confirming the judgment and order of conviction may impose more severe punishment and also enhance the amount of fine because the appellant-convict was found with illegal stock of 5000 litres of High Speed Diesel (hereinafter referred to as 'hsd') and this stock of HSD was lying in a tank. The appellant-convict was physically present when the inspection was carried out. In such a situation, the learned trial Judge ought not to have imposed such a lenient punishment of simple imprisonment for three months. The amount of fine of Rs. 2000/- is also meager amount.