Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 3 August, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
Crl. Appeal No. 1436-SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 1436-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 3.8.2010
Jatinder Kumar
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. T.S.Sangha, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.J.S.Lalli, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. J.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. The present appeal is directed judgment and order dated 11.9.2002 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, Barnala (for short `the Trial Court'), whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (for short `the Act') and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. The facts, as noticed by the Trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, are re-produced as under:
"The Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur sent Ex. PC, a Crl. Appeal No. 1436-SB of 2002 2 letter/report to the S.S.P.Sangrur containing the allegations that on 17.8.1995 Dr.Surjit Singh Bawa Agricultural Development Officer-cum-Fertilizer Inspector, Barnala, drew a representative sample of Single Superphosphate 16% Jat Super Fertilizer from the premises of M/s. Jatinder Kumar and Co. Barnala. The source of supply and manufacturer of the said fertilizer was M/s. Agro Chem Punjab Ltd. Singhpura, District Patiala. It was stated that the sample was drawn strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in Para- A Schedule II of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as the Order only). The sample was thoroughly mixed and divided into three parts. These parts were further put into three thick gauged polythene bags, which were further put into the cloth bags marked wit6hidentifiable Coe No. The details of the sampled fertilizer were prepared in Form-J, which were put in between the cloth bags and the polythene bags. A copy of Form-J was handed over to the dealer's representative as required under Clause 23(1) (b) of the Order. It was further state that three equal parts of the sample were made air tight, and sealed with the brass seal of the Fertilizer Inspector. One of these three parts/samples, was sent for analysis to the Analytical Chemist, Punjab, Fertilizer Quality Control, Laboratory, Ludhiana. The second sample was handed over to the Dealer's representative, whereas the third sample was deposited in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur, for safe custody as per the provisions of the said order. Crl. Appeal No. 1436-SB of 2002 3
The report was furnished by the Analytical Chemist within the stipulated period. The Analytical Chemist found that the sample as sub-standard, as it contained water-soluable 11.96% instead of 16% as per the specifications contained in the Order ibid. Accordingly, it was stated in the said report/letter that the accused had violated the provisions of Clause 19(i) (d) of the Order and committed the offence punishable u/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (as amended upto date). The S.S.P. Sangrur was requested to register F.I.R., on the basis of the same F.I.R. Ex.PC/1 was registered on 5.10.1997 on the basis of the aforesaid order."
3. The accused/appellant was charge sheeted under Section 7 of the Act for violation of the provisions of Clause 19(1) (a) of the Order, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, namely, Surjit Dass Bawa as PW1; Mukhtiar Singh as PW2; SI Chiranji Lal as PW3; Jit Singh Beldar as PW4; Bhupinder Singh Sahpuri as PW5; Hardial Singh Sandhu as PW6 and Raj Kumar as PW7.
5. After completion of the the prosecution examination, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his false implication in the present case. In defence, the accused examined Sanjay Pathak as DW1.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as noticed at the Crl. Appeal No. 1436-SB of 2002 4 outset in para 1 of this judgment. However, accused Hari Om was acquitted by the learned Trial Court.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal, which was admitted by this Court on 19.9.2002.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the judgment of the conviction/sentence on merits. He has prayed for taking lenient view by reduction of sentence and in the alternative for grant of probation on the grounds that the appellant has got no previous criminal history coupled with the fact that the appellant has already suffered the mental agony of protracted trial for about 13 years Reference has been made by learned counsel to judgments of this Court reported as Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR (Crl.) 563 and Niranjan and another v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) RCR (Crl.) 620, wherein in similar circumstances, the accused/petitioner was released on probation.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown as the case of prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
10. In the instant case, no previous antecedents have been brought to surface so as to condemn the accused/appellant as habitual offenders coupled with the fact that he has already faced the mental agony of protracted trial for about 13 years as the FIR is dated 5.10.1997. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would not be met if the appellant is sent for incarceration to suffer his remaining part of sentence, therefore, this would be a fit case, in which the sentence awarded to him should be modified and he be released on probation of good conduct. Crl. Appeal No. 1436-SB of 2002 5
11. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. However, the order of sentence is modified, and the appellant is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct, on furnishing a personal bond, in the sum of `1,00,000/-with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Barnala for a period of three years, to appear and receive sentence, as and when called upon to do so, during this period, and in the meantime, to keep the peace, and be of good behaviour, and also furnish an undertaking not to commit, such an offence, during the said period. The appellant shall furnish the probation bonds and pay the costs of proceedings to the tune of `10,000/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, by the concerned Court.
12. In case of failure of the appellant to furnish the probation bonds, and deposit the costs of proceedings, within the period stipulated, shall entitle the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Barnala, to comply with the judgment, in accordance with law, with due promptitude.
13. Since the instant appeal is disposed of, as such, the pending misc. applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
03.08.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No