RAMCHANDRA AGARWAL AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a batch of eight criminal misc. petitions by different Petitioners under Sections 561 -A and 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a review of the orders of this Court passed in Criminal References Nos. 13 and 15 to 21 of 1972 on 7 -5 -1973 enhancing their sentence of, fine of Rs. 2,000/ - to one of R.I. for six months arising in the following circumstances.

(2.) ON 1 -2 -1967, at the instance of the Vigilance Police, some business premises of Malgodown, Cuttack were raided and certain documents and Khatas seized, which on examination revealed transactions of forward contract in ground -nut oil prohibited under law. Consequently nine Criminal cases were started against these firms and their partners or proprietors under Section 20(e) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (Act 74 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). All the cases were tried and disposed of by the Additional District Magistrate (Judl.), Cuttack. Before him, in some cases, the managing partners and in some cases the managers or proprietors took the responsibility of having transacted the business (three instances of Forward Contract in Ground -nut oil) and therefore the Additional District Magistrate (Judl.) exonerated others and found the firms and the person in management of the business to be guilty and inflicted a consolidated fine of Rs. 2, 000/ - with a defaulting sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal the Sessions Judge while dismissing the same recommended for enhancement of sentence in as much as the minimum sentence awardable under the Act, for each offence, was rupees one thousand. All the convicted persons and their respective firms filed revisions against their convictions before this Court excepting one. But, all the same, there were nine references made by the Sessions Judge for passing "appropriate sentence". This Court, while dismissing the revisions enhanced the sentence in the reference cases, so far as the firms are concerned, to a sum of Rs. 3, 900/ - at the rate of rupees one thousand and three hundred for each offence and so far as the managers or managing partners are concerned, to a sentence of six months ' rigorous imprisonment, -that is, two months for each deal. The party that did not prefer any revision was only sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3, 900/ - in the concerned criminal reference No. 14 of 1972 but no substantive imprisonment was awarded. The firms have paid up their fines. But persons who were awarded substantive imprisonment, as stated above, have filed these criminal miscellaneous petitions for a review of the order, mainly on three grounds:

(3.) THE petitions raise the following points: