LAWS(CAL)-2016-6-124

SHYAMSUNDAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On June 24, 2016
Shyamsundar Agarwal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment and order dated 16th Oct., 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Asansol in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2001 affirming the judgment and order dated 18th June, 1987 convicting the petitioner and other accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00 each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for a further one month each has been assailed.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged, against the petitioner and other accused persons is to the effect that the petitioner and one, Onkarmal Agarwalla and Nathmal Agarwalla carried on business under the name and style of M/s. Bonjamihary Anthracite Coal Co. It is further alleged that the firm of the petitioner used to receive rail pieces from ISCO on a priority allocation basis. It is also alleged that the accused persons could not satisfactorily account for 500 pieces of 24 lbs. of steel rails entrusted to it. In course of examination, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. It appears from the inspection reports (Exhibits-7 and 8) that only nine pieces of rails out of 539 pieces entrusted to the petitioner 's company were utilised and the remainder was misutilised. There is evidence on record that the petitioner was a partner of the firm. On the basis of the said evidence on record, conviction of the petitioner along with other accused persons was recorded under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. They were accordingly, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00 each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for a further one month each. In appeal, the conviction and order of sentence was upheld.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the materials on record do not establish entrustment or misappropriation. It is also submitted that the sentence was too severe.