Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Ganpatbhai Premjibhai Joshi on 8 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998CRILJ2160
JUDGMENT N.J. Pandya, J.
1. The grievance made in the appeal is that to an offender of control orders under the Essential Commodities Act, the benefit of probation has been extended. The Ld. Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur by the order dated 21-3-1997 in, Spl. Case No. 4/86, gave the said benefit when after 4 prosecution witnesses were examined, by the pursis at Exh. 38, respondent accused disclosed before the trial Court that he has already closed the shop and as the case has been pending since long, benefit be given to him of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
2. On behalf of the respondent accused, it was pointed out that if at all there be any lapse on the part of the Ld. Trial Judge, it is only to the effect that report of the Probation Officer has not been called for otherwise all special circumstances which would earn him benefit of the said provisions of probation are there on record.
3. The matter has been pending from the date of the inspection of the business premises of the accused almost for 10 years. That very trial concluded i n the 9th year of its pendency. Accused has already closed shop and, therefore, there is no question of his repeating offence.
4. In the decision reported in AIR 1975 SC 845, almost similar situation was dealt with by Their Lordships and it was a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the benefit was decided to be given.
5. Here also, it may be seen that 1958 Enactment where b the formal expression of the legislative will to grant benefit of probation was clarified and expressed and in no uncertain terms, for the Enastments which were already on the Statute Book, necessary, reference has been made in Dec. 18 to exclude them. Essential Commodities Act, 1958 is not one of the Statutes referred to therein, in other words, though the said Essential Commodities Act was very much in force at the time when said Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 came to be enacted, the Parliament, in its wisdom, has chosen not to exclude it.
6. Under the circumstances, even the provisio for minimum punishment will not come in the way because benefit of probation has to be given to the offenders under the provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of all other Statutes providing for penal offences unless they are specifically excluded either in the Statute itself or under the provisions of the said Probation of Offenders Act. This being not the position in relation to the offences under Essential Commodities Act, obviously, the decision taken by the Ld. Spl. Judge cannot be said to be, in any manner, wrong.
7. The report ought to have been called for as per Section 4 of the Act, but that lapse may be overlooked in view of the pursis Exh. 38 as possibility of repetition of the offence under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act is no longer there because business is closed.
8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The judgment and order of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed.