SOHANLAL AGRAWALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.10.1991 passed by learned Judge Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 09 of 1986.

(2.) The appellant has been found guilty for violation of Clause -3 of the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil seeds and Edible Oil Declares' (Licensing) Order, 1977, for the reason that he was then carrying on business in dealing essential commodities such as groundnut and groundnut oils as a 'dealer' without the required lawful authority, license/ or such other document. Accordingly, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Admittedly, the appellant was issued with a license as required under the said Order for the above essential commodities having its validity till 31.03.1985. However, he had not applied for its renewal on or before the said date of expiry and the application for renewal being given thereafter on 30.12.1985. It was lying as it is without being attended to or rejected as on date of inspection of the business premises. Had the application being tendered by the accused on or before 31.03.1985 and would have been lying as it is; no fault on that account could have been attributed to him. The earlier license would have been deemed to have been in force. So, here in the case in hand one technical violation has arisen. It is that the application has been tendered after 11 months of the expiry of earlier license. But it being before the inspection; it cannot be said to have been an afterthought or in management of the situation as detected in the inspection.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant (accused) submits that at present the accused has crossed his seventies and he has been facing the case since 1986 for more than 30 years when this appeal has been pending since 1991. He submits that for the above, the accused has undergone severe mental pain and agony. Placing the evidence record, while submitting that the violation shown by the prosecution is too technical, he of course fairly submits that no such ground exists in the case so as to set aside the finding of guilt rendered against the accused by the trial court. In view of above, it is submitted that in the interest of justice and to meet its end, at this stage the custodial sentence be suitably modified by imposition of fine with default stipulation.