STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. CHAMPAT RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The State has come up for enhancement of sentence of the respondents. who have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/.. each, for having contravened clause 3(i)(ii) of the Rajasthan Specified Foodgrains (Sale of Stocks and Movement Control) Order, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the OrderT) punish able under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in default of payment of fine the respondents were ordered to suffer 15 days simple imprisonment. The further grievance of the State is that the seized 15 bags Bajra should have been forfeited to the Government. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the respondents only with a fine of Rs. 100/-considering the circumstances that the offence is a technical one and sentence of fine is adequate and in respect of the goods passed an order that the same be returned to the accused Champat, after expiry of the period of appeal.

(3.) It may be stated that under sub-clause (b) of clause 2 of the Order Sirohi was declared to be a notified area and Pali and Nagaur together were declared as notified area and movement of food grains from one notified area to another notified area is restricted under clause 3, sub-clause (1) of the order. Movement within the two notified areas is permissible under a permit issued by the State Government or by the Collector or any other officer authorised by the State Government in, this behalf. Sumerpur adjoins Sirohi District. As the two areas are contiguous with each other, it may be that the respondents may not have obtained permit and without obtaining permit transported 15 bags Bajra from Sumerpur to Sirohi. The offence appears to be a technical one. Besides that, the offence was committed on 11.1.1974. Considering this time factor, we are not inclined to enhance the sentence. With regard to the forefeiture of goods, it is significant to note that the goods have already been delivered On furnishing surety to the tune of Rs. 2,0001to the accused Champat on 15.6.74. Although under the Order dated 13.6.74 which ordered is under challenge. The goods were ordered to be delivered after the expiry of the period of limitation of filing the appeal, but the perusal of the record of the trial court shows that the goods being of perishable nature the accused the Champat moved an application and on that application 15 bags of Bajra were ordered to be handed over to him on furnishing surety. As the goods were handed over considering them to be of perishable nature, so the same must have been sold by the accused. As such, instead of ordering of forfeiture of any part of the goods, we think it proper and appropriate that a sum of Rs. 200/-may be realised from the accused Champat on account of forfeiture of the goods of the valuation of Rs. 200/-.