Allahabad High Court
Umesh Chandra Porwal vs State on 1 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:68345
Reserved on 20.03.2026
Delivered on 01.04.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2221 of 1988
Umesh Chandra Porwal
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, G.P. Dixit, Purushottam Dixit, Raj Kumar Mishra, Umesh Chandra Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Mishra as well as Sri Purushottam Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.09.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etawah, in Special Case (E.C. Act) No. 2 of 1985 (State vs. Umesh Chandra Porwal), Police Station Basrehar, District Etawah, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to one and a half years' imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo one month simple imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.01.1984, an FIR was registered against the present appellant under Section 3/7 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1955") by Sri Hem Kumar Sharma with the allegation that he purchased kerosene oil from the shop of the appellant for which the appellant charged price thereof at the rate of Rs.2.75 paise per litre though the government fixed price was at the rate of 2.05 paise per litre. The informant made protest for such excess amount but the appellant stated that at his shop kerosene oil cannot be made available at the government rate. On the FIR lodged by the informant, the Investigating Officer started investigation, collected evidence and submitted charge-sheet in this case against the appellant on 30.03.1984 under Section 3/7 of the Act, 1955.
4. After submission of charge-sheet before the court concerned, charges were framed by the trial court against the appellant under Section 3/7 of the Act, 1955. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined Hem Kumar Sharma (the informant) as PW-1, Ramesh Chandra (Gram Pradhan) as PW-2, Bahadur Singh as PW-3, Head Constable Het Singh as PW-4, and Sub-Inspector Akshaya Sharma as PW-5, who conducted the investigation.
6. Once, the prosecution evidence was over, statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned trial court explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances in which the appellant denied the prosecution case and claimed that the entire prosecution story was wrong and concocted.
7. In order to substantiate the defence evidence, two defence witnesses were examined in the trial court. One Daya Ram was examined as DW-1 and another Satish Chandra Rathor was examined as DW-2, who stated that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case.
8. Thereafter, the learned trial court, after hearing learned counsel for both parties and appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused-appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him to one and a half years? rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the Act, 1955. A fine of Rs. 500/- was also imposed upon the appellant.
9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the accused/ appellant has preferred the present appeal.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he does not want to press the present appeal on merits. He submitted that the incident took place 42 years ago and there is no further criminal antecedent against the appellant. The delay in trial deprives the right of the appellant of speedy trial and he may be given benefit of first offender as provided under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1958"). He further submitted that the appellant was first time offender and was not previously convicted in any case and the same has been observed by the learned trial court at page no.15 of the impugned judgment that no previous conviction was proved against the convict- appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 07.11.2025, wherein too it is stated that the appellant be given benefit of Act, 1958, considering his old age. It is also submitted that the appeal was filed in the year 1988, i.e. 37 years ago and now the appellant is an old and infirm person, who is suffering from several ailments relating to old age. The Aadhaar Card of the appellant has also been appended along with the supplementary affidavit, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 31.12.1952. It is submitted that the appellant is aged about 73 years. His statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 09.09.1988 and he claimed to be aged about 35 years. Therefore, in any case, he is aged about 73 years.
11. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the learned trial court and keeping in view the evidence on record, accused-appellant has rightly been convicted. The custody certificate of the appellant has been produced by the learned A.G.A and it is stated that the appellant has served only one month and four days imprisonment though he has been sentenced to one and a half years' imprisonment.
12. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 should not be extended to the appellant since he has not served minimum sentence of three months as prescribed under Section 7 of the Act, 1955.
13. After considering the arguments advanced by the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that except apart the merits of the case, so far as the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant for providing benefits of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is concerned, it is essential to discuss the legal position and law propounded by the Apex Court.
14. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 1958 are extracted hereunder:
"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.- "Where any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4 release him after due admonition.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this Section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this Section or Section 4.
4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.- (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond."
15. That Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratan Lal vs State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444, while discussing the purpose and object of the Act, 1958, has observed in para no. 4, as follows:-
"4. The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years, absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the condition laid down in the appropriate provision of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act."
16. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash vs State of Haryana, (1981) 1 SCC 447 : AIR 1981 SC 643 while discussing on the duty of Bench and Bar regarding compliance of Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 4 of the Act, 1958 was pleased to observe as under:-
"The offence, for which conviction has been rendered, is one which will be attracted by S. 360 or at any rate the Probation of offenders Act, 1958. The materials before us are imperfect because the Trial Court has been perfunctory in discharging its sentencing functions. We must emphasise that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch. The Trial Court should have collected materials necessary to help award a just punishment in the circumstances. The social background and the personal factors of the crime-doer are very relevant although in practice Criminal Courts have hardly paid attention to the social milieu or the personal circumstances of the offender. Even if S. 360 Cr.P.C. is not attracted, it is the duty of the sentencing Court to be activist enough to collect such facts as have a bearing on punishment with a rehabilitating slant. The absence of such materials in the present case has left us with little assistance even from the counsel. Indeed members of the bar also do not pay sufficient attention to these legislative provisions which relate to dealing with an offender in such manner that he becomes a non-offender. We emphasise this because the legislation which relate to amelioration in punishment have been regarded as 'Minor Acts' and, therefore, of little consequence. This is a totally wrong approach and even if the Bar does not help, the Bench must fulfil the humanising mission of sentencing implicit in such enactments as the Probation of offenders Act."
17. That it is also noteworthy that this Court in the case of Subhash Chand vs State of U.P; [2015 Law Suit (All) 1343, has emphatically laid down the need to apply the law of probation and give benefit of the beneficial legislation to accused persons in appropriate cases. This court issued following directions to all trial courts and appellate courts:-
"It appears that the aforesaid beneficial legislation has been lost sight of and even the Judges have practically forgotten this provision of law. Thus, before parting with the case, this Court feels that I will be failing in discharge of my duties, if a word of caution is not written for the trial courts and the appellante courts. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to circulate copy of this Judgment to all the District Judges of U.P., who shall in turn ensure circulation of the copy of this order amongst all the judicial officers working under him and shall ensure strict compliance of this Judgment. The District Judges in the State are also directed to call for reports every months from all the courts, i.e. trial courts and appellate courts dealing with such matters and to state as to in how many cases the benefit of the aforesaid provisions have been granted to the accused. The District Judges are also directed to monitor such cases personally in each monthly meeting. The District Judges concerned shall send monthly statement to the Registrar General as to in how many cases the trial court/appellate court has granted the benefit of the aforesaid beneficial legislation to the accused. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General for immediate compliance."
18. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand; (2004) 7 SCC 659 has extended the benefit of the Act, 1958 to the appellants, and observed as under:-
"The learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the accident is of the year 1990. The parties are educated and neighbors. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be granted to the accused. The prayer made on behalf of the accused seems to be reasonable. The accident is more than ten years old. The dispute was between the neighbors over a trivial issue of claiming of drainage. The accident took place in a fit of anger. All the parties educated and also distantly related. The accident is not such as to direct the accused to undergo sentence of imprisonment. In our opinion, it is a fit case in which the accused should be released on probation by directing them to execute a bond of one year for good behaviour."
19. That coming to the point of desirability of extending the benefit of Probation Act to the accused/ appellants in Sitaram Paswan and Anr v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3534, Supreme Court held as under:-
"For exercising the power which is discretionary, the Court has to consider circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of the offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. Thebenefit available to the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is subject to the limitation embodied in the provisions and the word "may" clearly indicates that the discretion vests with the Court whether to release the offender in exercise of the powers under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, having regard to the nature of the offence and the character of the offender and overall circumstances of the case. The powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act vest with the Court when any person is found guilty of the offence committed, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This power can be exercised by the Courts while finding the person guilty and if the Court thinks that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, benefit should be extended to the accused, the power can be exercised by the Court even at the appellate or revisional stage and also by this Court while hearing appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."
20. That it is also noteworthy that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P and Ors., AIR 2017 SC page 660, was pleased to observe as under:
"20-.........In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 444. Subba Rao, J., speaking for the majority, opined thus:-
"The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case; including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act."
21. That Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is applicable where a person is found guilty of committing an offence where punishment is neither life sentence nor death. The Court may release such an accused on probation of good conduct on his furnishing a bond as mentioned in the Section. The Court in applying the provisions of this Section is also required to consider the circumstances of the case, character of the offender and nature of the offence before exercising its discretion.
22. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1958 thus clearly indicate that Section 4 of the Act of 1958 does not create any distinction between the category of offenders and the provision of the said Section can be made applicable in any case where the offender is found guilty for committing an offence which is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Incidentally certain exceptions have been indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as in the case of Smt. Devki Versus State of Harayana; 1979 (3) SCC 760 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 could not be extended to a culprit who was found guilty of abducting a teenaged girl and forcing her to sexual submission with criminal motive. Similarly in the case reported in 1980 (4) SCC 669 in Re: State of Maharashtra Versus Natwar Lal Damodar Das Soni, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 to an accused found guilty of gold smuggling.
23. That Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagat Pal Singh & others vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 3622 has given the benefit of probation while upholding the conviction of accused persons under Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC and has released the accused persons on executing a bond before the Magistrate for maintaining good behaviour and peace for the period of six months.
24. Similarly this Court in case of Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.; 2022(120)ACrC 392 has given benefit of probation while upholding the conviction of revisionist under section 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act and had released the accused persons on executing a bond before Magistrate for maintaining good behaviour and peace for the period of six months.
25. Recently in the judgment passed in the case of Tarak Nath Keshari Vs. State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 605, the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the provisions of the Act, 1955 extended the benefit of the Act, 1958 to the accused. The relevant paragraphs of Tarak Nath Kesari (supra) are extracted hereunder:-
"9. However, still we find that a case is made out for grant of benefit of probation to the appellant for the reason that the offence was committed more than 37 years back and it was not pointed out at the time of hearing that the appellant was involved in any other offence. Before all the courts below, the appellant remained on bail. While entertaining his appeal, even this Court had granted him exemption from surrendering. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has a non obstante clause. The same is extracted below:
"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.-(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."
10. Even if there is minimum sentence provided in Section 7 of the EC Act, in our opinion, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of probation, the EC Act, being of the year 1955 and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being later. Even if minimum sentence is provided in the EC Act, 1955 the same will not be a hurdle for invoking the applicability of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in Lakhvir Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The appellant is directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on entering into bond and two sureties each to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behaviour for the remaining part of his sentence, failing which he can be called upon to serve the sentence."
26. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of Tarak Nath Kesari (supra), wherein the accused- appellant Tarak Nath Kesari was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 7(1) of the Act, 1955. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarak Nath Kesari (supra) extended the benefit of probation while upholding the conviction under Section 7(1) of the Act, 1955. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.10 that even if minimum sentence is prescribed in Section 7 of the Act, 1955, the appellant-accused is entitled to the benefit of probation. The minimum sentence provided under the Act, 1955 is not a hurdle for invoking the applicability of provisions of the probation of offenders Act, 1958. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. has no force and thus, fails.
27. After having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and going through the record, this Court finds that the learned trial court has not given any special reasons as prescribed under Section 361 of Cr.P.C. as to why the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 was not extended to the appellant.
28. The incident in the present matter took place way back in the year 1984. The accused-appellant has suffered in this matter for last 42 years and there is no criminal antecedent prior or after the incident. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the sentencing order passed by the learned trial court suffers from irregularity and benefit of provision of the Act, 1958 should be provided to the accused-appellant.
29. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the scope of Section 4 of the Act, 1958, the conviction of the appellant is maintained but the sentence is hereby modified. Instead of sending the appellant to jail, he is given benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 and he is directed to file two sureties to the tune of Rs.25,000/- along with his personal bond before the District Probation Officer, Etawah and also an undertaking to the effect that he shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of one year from today. The said bonds are to be filed by the appellant within a period of one month from the date of this judgment.
30. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the appellant shall be taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to him.
31. With the above modification, the instant criminal appeal is partly allowed.
32. A certified copy of the order be also sent to the court concerned for compliance.
33. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
34. Trial court record, if any, shall also be sent back to the district court concerned.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) April 1, 2026 Radhika