Bombay High Court
Rajendra Paleram Agarwal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 July, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992CRILJ3525
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay by his Judgment and order dated 23-2-1988 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months on two counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days, on both counts. The substantive sentences have been made concurrent.
2. The appeal was admitted on 12-4-1988. It has been pending since then. The application dated 7th July, 1992 was received from the appellant stating therein that during the last three months his financial position has gone bad to worst and he was unable to survive in this city. He further stated that his entire family is suffering from great hardship and he was without a job. Hence, he prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and sought permission to surrender before the Court to undergone the remaining period of sentence, whereafter he wanted to leave Bombay. I instantly realized that the application was the result of frustration and great hardship that was being faced by the appellant and therefore thought instead of allowing him to withdraw the appeal and undergo the sentence, not as a matter of repentence but due to sheer force of adverse circumstances, I requested Mr. Tirodkar to assist the Court on merits and meanwhile seek instructions from the appellant. Accordingly, the hearing of the appeal was fixed and the appellant is present in the Court today.
3. The case of the prosecution against the appellant was, briefly stated, as follows :
The appellant was running a ration shop in the name an style of Laxmi Stores at Narsipada, Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (East), Bombay. On 23-1-1985 Rationing Inspector Sanap visited the shop. He called upon Vijendra brother of the appellant who was in the shop to produce his ration card. Said Vijendra produced two ration cards and the particulars therefrom revealed that some names were shown common in both the ration cards. It was therefore alleged that by furnishing false information the appellant had obtained double ration for his family members. Hence, it was alleged that he had contravened the provisions of clause 18(a) of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing (Second) Order, 1966 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was also alleged that he had contravened clause 18(b) of the said Order. Since there contraventions were punishable he was prosecuted. The defence of the appellant was that he held only one ration card and he was not concerned with the second ration card and he had committed no offence. Clause 18(a) of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Rationing (Second) Order, 1966 prohibits applying for duplicate ration card and provides that no person shall dishonestly apply for or receive more than one ration card, if he knows or has reason to believe that his name is already included in any other ration card issued to any household. Clause 18(b) provides that no person shall obtain a ration card by furnishing false information. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 makes punishable contravention of any order made under section 3 of the Act. The above mentioned Foodgrains Rationing Order, 1966 was issued by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and other enabling powers.
4. The learned trial Judge after scrutinising the evidence found that the charge brought against the appellant was proved and he was guilty of having contravened both the sub-clauses of clause 18 of the Foodgrains Rationing Order, 1966 namely clause (a) and clause (b). He therefore convicted the appellant.
5. Mr. Tirodkar, the learned counsel for the appellant found it difficult to challenge the conviction of the appellant. After going through the evidence I see no good reason to take any different view than taken by the learned trail Judge and it must be therefore held that the appellant is liable to be punished under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause 18 of the Rationing (Second) Order, 1966.
6. However, Mr. Tirodkar vehemently urged that this is a fit case in which the substantive sentence of imprisonment may be removed. Section 7(1)(a)(i) under which the learned trial Judge has passed the sentence prescribes that he imprisonment may be for a term which may extend to one year coupled with fine. The contravention of the two clauses of the Rationing Order have been found punishable under this penal provision. The section therefore does not provide any minimum sentence for the said contravention.
7. Having regard of the circumstances stated in the application for intended withdrawal, filed by the appellant on 7-7-1992, and also the affidavit filed to day by him, stating inter alia therein that he is unemployed, he has to look after his widowed mother and three brothers, that he is married and has three children to whom he has to look after, that the children are of minor age and schooling, that there are no other earning members in the family, that he has lost his job about three months back and his family is without any income, and further taking into account the circumstance that considerable time has elapsed since the commission of the offence and now in addition to the circumstance that the nature of the offence could not be regarded as extremely grave I am inclined to reduce the substantive sentence. The record shows that the appellant was arrested on 18-6-1985. It appears that he was released on bail on the same day. However, that can be construed as imprisonment for one day. I think that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this token sentence of one day would suffice together with the sentence of fine in all Rs. 600/-, which is stated to have been already paid.
8. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is confirmed but the sentence of R.I. for three months on both the counts is reduced to one day's simple imprisonment already undergone on both the counts concurrently. However, the sentence of fine together with the default sentence on both the counts is confirmed. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds cancelled as appellant is not required to undergo any further sentence in this case.
Order accordingly.