DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHARAMPAL appellant herein has been convicted by learned Special Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 18.9.1996/20.9.96 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with clause 9(1) of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality Order, 1977 and clauses 3 and 4 of the Haryana Commodities Price Marketing and Display Order, 1975 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine of further undergo RI for six months.

(2.) IN short the case of the prosecution is that SI Mahender Singh, who was posted as Incharge of Police Post, Dinod Gate, Bhiwani received a secret information against the appellant to the effect that he was keeping kerosene oil to the extent of large quantity. A raid was conducted with the officials of the Food and Civil Supplies department on the shop of the appellant on 28.6.1994 and kerosene to the extent of 760 litres was found in possession of the appellant whereas his relevant record in this connection was showing nil stock. Since the appellant could not furnish any explanation for it, he was booked in the present case. After completion of the entire investigation, the appellant was challaned to face trial. On appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Judge, Special Court, has convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) MR . Kundu does not assail the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and instead prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence. In support of his arguments, it has been submitted that the present case relates to the year 1994 and by now the appellant has already faced the rigour of protracted trial of about 9 years and as such he deserves a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon two judgments of this Court rendered in Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 652 : 1999(2) RCR(Crl.) 563 (P&H) and Niranjan and anr. v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069 : 1994(2) RCR(Crl.) 620 (P&H) and prayed for the benefit of probation. On the other hand Ms. Mathuria vehemently contends that the appellant does not deserve any leniency as he was found in possession of large quantity of kerosene oil without any record and the sentence as awarded by the trial court deserves to be maintained.