SATINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment I shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 283-SB of 1991 (Satinder Singh v. State of Punjab) and Criminal Appeal No. 303-SB of 1991 (Prithvi Raj and another v. State of Punjab), as both are arising out of one and the same judgment passed by learned Special Court Hoshiarpur dated 11.7.1991, vide which the above said appellants have been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and have been sentenced to undergo RI for one and a half years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each.

(2.) IN short the case of the prosecution is that on 4.11.1988, Harjit Singh, Fertilizer Inspector took sample of Super Phosphate 16% fertilizer from the premises of M/s Golden Times, Phagwara Road Hoshiarpur of which Prithvi Raj (appellant in Crl. appeal No. 303-SB of 1991) was the sole Proprietor. Surinder Kumar appellant was allegedly found at the premises at the time of taking sample. Satinder Singh (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 283-SB of 1991) was responsible officer of the manufacturer M/s Munak Chemicals Ltd., Bathinda under clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The sample taken was found to be non-standard after analysis and thus, the above said three appellants were booked in this case for the violation of clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. All the three appellants after the trial have been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge as indicated above. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present two appeals.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants do not assail the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and instead prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence. In support of their arguments, it has been submitted that the present case relates to the year 1988 and by now the appellants have faced the rigor of protracted trial of about 15 years. It is then contended that the appellants are not previous convicts and as such they deserve lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. In support of their arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants have 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); Niranjan and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069 : 1994(2) RCR(Crl.) 620 (P&H) and Paramjit and another v. State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 186-SB of 1996 decided on 10.9.2003 and pray for the benefit of probation.