Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 21 January, 2010
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
-1-
Criminal Appeal No.706-SB of 1996.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Appeal No.706-SB of 1996.
Date of Decision: January 21, 2010.
Pritam Singh and others ... Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana ...Respondent
1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate,
amicus curiae,
for the appellant.
Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 1.10.1996 and the sentence order dated -2- Criminal Appeal No.706-SB of 1996.
4.10.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Bhiwani, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') read with Clauses 5, 7 and 9 of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993. Appellant Pritam Singh, owner of Dadri Gas Service, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Appellants Suresh, Parkash and Parveen Kumar, who were employees of appellant Pritam Singh, were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one and a half months.
As per facts of the prosecution case, on 16.6.1994, Mahender Singh Lather, District Food & Supplies Controller, Bhiwani, along with Balwant Singh, Assistant Food & Supplies Controller, Aditya Kumar and Dharampal, Inspectors, Food & Supplies Department, went to inspect Dadri Gas Service, Dadri, owned by appellant Pritam Singh. They checked the record as well as the actual stocks of empty and filled cylinders. There was deficiency of one filled cylinder and four empty cylinders according to stock register. 17 cylinders were found less in weight. The list of under-weight cylinders was prepared. Appellant Parveen Kumar, Manager, appellant Suresh, Clerk and appellant Parkash, all employees of Dadri Gas Service were present and they signed the -3- Criminal Appeal No.706-SB of 1996.
memo prepared at the spot by the District Food & Supplies Controller in token of its correctness. The District Food & Supplies Controller also prepared the detailed report which was signed by him and other members of the raiding party of the Civil Supplies Department. Stock register, sale register, receipt book/cash memo books were taken into possession. After finding these deficiencies, a letter was prepared and handed over to the police for registration of a criminal case against the appellants. 17 cylinders, which were deficient in weight, were also taken into possession by the District Food & Supplies Controller and produced before the police. The police took these cylinders into its possession.
After completion of investigation, challan against the appellants was presented in Court.
Charge under Section 7 of the Act read with Clauses 5, 7 and 9 of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993, was framed against the appellants, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed a trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined Head Constable Mahenderpal (P.W.1), Mahender Singh Lather, District Food and Supplies Controller, Bhiwani (P.W.2) and Assistant Sub Inspector Partap Singh (P.W.3).
On closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which they denied the prosecution -4- Criminal Appeal No.706-SB of 1996.
allegations and pleaded innocence. Besides, appellant Pritam Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated as under:-
" I was not present at my Gas Service
on 16.6.1994. I came back at about 6 in
the evening and came to know of the incident.
An Inspector as representative of D.F.S.C
had come to me on 12.6.1994. He asked
me to issue D.B.C (double barrel connection)
out of turn which I refused. This Inspector was Sobha Chand. It is because of this that I have been implicated in this case falsely. Sobha Singh had given in writing about this recommendation in favour of Om Parkash on the application of Om Parkash."
No evidence was led by the appellant in defence. As learned counsel for the appellants did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing, Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate, was appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellants.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has -5- Criminal Appeal No.706-SB of 1996.
argued that all the recovery witnesses in this case were official witnesses, but only Mahender Singh Lather, District Food and Supplies Controller, Bhiwani (P.W.2) has been examined and the statement of P.W.2 does not get any corroboration either from official witness or any independent witness. According to the learned counsel, Assistant Sub Inspector Partap Singh (P.W.3) comes into picture after registration of the case against the appellants. Mahender Singh Lather, District Food and Supplies Controller, Bhiwani (P.W.2), along with his subordinate staff, had raided the business premises of accused-appellant Pritam Singh in the discharge of his official duties. He had no enmity with the appellants to falsely implicate them in such a case. Mahender Singh Lather (P.W.2) had obtained writing on the day of the raid from accused-appellant Suresh Kumar, Clerk, appellant Parkash, Storekeeper and appellant Parveen, Manager of the Gas Agency, which is Exhibit P.E. This writing shows that on 16.6.1994, the District Food & Supplies Controller, Bhiwani, had visited the godown of Dadari Gas Agency, Dadri, and had checked the record and the stocks. The document (Exhibit P.B) not only gives the number of filled cylinders as 76 but also gives the number of empty cylinders as 545. Exhibit P.B further shows that 58 defective cylinders were found in the Gas Agency. Exhibit P.B further shows that less gas was found in 17 cylinders. Had Exhibit P.B not been correct, appellants Parveen, Suresh and Parkash would not have signed the same in token of its -6- Criminal Appeal No.706-SB of 1996.
correctness. As such, there was no question of any false evidence being created at the time of the raid and the position of the empty cylinders, filled cylinders and defective cylinders was determined and notified by the employees of the Gas Agency themselves. No prejudice was caused to the accused-appellants. No inference against the prosecution, under the circumstances of the case, can be drawn for not joining any independent person in the raiding party. In this case, besides the deficiency of gas in 15 cylinders (two cylinders being treated as empty out of 17 cylinders), the appellants were unable to explain as to where three filled and two empty cylinders had been supplied or disposed of. Besides the afore-mentioned deficiencies in the working of the Dadri Gas Agency committed by the appellants, they were also guilty of disposing of five gas cylinders, which was against the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. No interference is, therefore, called for in the impugned judgment of conviction.
Consequently, the conviction of the appellants under Section 7 of the Act read with Clauses 5, 7 and 9 of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993, as recorded by the learned trial Judge, is upheld. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the matter pertains to June, 1994, I am of the considered opinion that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years awarded to appellant -7- Criminal Appeal No.706-SB of 1996.
Pritam Singh is on excessive side. I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to appellant Pritam Singh is reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. I order accordingly. The sentence of fine of Rs.40,000/- imposed by the trial Court on appellant Pritam Singh and the default clause shall remain unaltered. However, the sentence awarded by the trial Court to appellants Suresh, Parkash and Parveen Kumar i.e rigorous imprisonment for six months shall remain unaltered.
With the above modification in the impugned sentence
order, this appeal is dismissed.
January 21, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL )
ak JUDGE