(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.2.1994 passed by Special Judge, (EC Act), Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 33/1991, whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentenced them to undergo three month's SI with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's SI.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a written report was lodged by the Assisant Director, Sub Division Agriculture (Extension), Shahpura, District Jaipur on 21.12.1990 at Police Station, Shahpura to the effect that he inspected the shop of M/s. Chaudhary Khad Beej Bhandar, Manoharpur at 2.00 PM on 16.8.1990 in the capacity of Fertilizer Inspector. At the time of inspection, the accused appellant namely Ram Karan was present at the premises of shop and he was working there. The owner of establishment is accused Laxmi Narain. The Inspector introduced himself to the accused appellant Ram Karan and took a sample of single superphasphate Atul Brand. In the form "J", the signatures of Ram Karan as dealer were obtained and the sample was sent for examination. As per the report of examination of sample dated 15.10.1990, the same was not found in accordance with the ingredients. On that basis, FIR was registered and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the accused persons before the court below. The substance of accusation was stated to the accused persons, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses. Thereafter statement of the accused appellants under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, vide its judgment dated 15.2.1994, as indicated here-in-above. Against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
(3.) At the very out-set, learned counsel for the appellents has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that looking to the nature of allegation and the matter pertains to the year 1990, which is 25 years ago from today approximately, the accused appellants are old persons having the children of marriagable age, it is the first offence of their life, they should be released on probation while dealing with the provisions under Section 360 CrPC. Reliance was placed on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harivallabha and Another v. State of M.P., 2005 10 SCC 330. Relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN