Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Badri Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ2060, 1997(1)WLN268
ORDER M.A.A. Khan, J.
1. Under the Public Distribution System the Tehsildar, Mangrol, Distt. Kota (Raj.) had issued on Feb. 5, 1977 an authorisation under Clause 3(4) of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and other Essential Articles (Regularisation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short, 'the Order 1976) for purchase, sale and storage for sale of foodgrains and other essential articles to the petitioner, an already existing wholesale dealer. Condition Nos. 5, 8 and 10 of the 'General Conditions' and condition No. 14 of the 'special conditions' of this authorisation which are relevant for our purpose provided as under:-
General Conditions:
5. The authorisation holder shall maintain a stock register in Form 'C showing correctly, the daily receipt and sale of the each Food-grains and other essential articles. A daily sale register shall also be maintained in Form 'D' by the authorised wholesaler and in From 'E' by the authorised fair price shopkeeper. All books of accounts, permits, voucher etc. shall be kept at the business premises specified in the authorisation and shall be made available for inspection, whenever required.
8. The authorisation holder shall display the opening balance and period of each variety of Foodgrains and other essential articles at a concerned place at his business premises in bold letters.
10. The authorisation holder shall give all facilities at all reasonable time for inspection of his stocks and accounts at any place of premises used by him for sale/storage of Foodgrains and other essential articles.
Special conditions:
14. The authorised fair price shopkeeper shall sell Foodgrains and other essential articles supplied by the Government from time to time, directly to those consumers only whose ration cards are registered at his shop in Unit Register (Form 'G') and to the persons holding special permits issued by the Collector.
2. In conformity with the terms and conditions of the authorisation, the Collector (supplies) had also issued certain 'permanent instructions' on May 2, 1977 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Clause 20 of the Order 1976.
3. In terms of the authorisation issued in his favour the petitioner was supplied from time to time, by the State Government inter alia, levy sugar to distribute amongst the ration card holders of ward Nos. 6 to 10 of village Mangrol at his 'fair price shop' in that village. On an inspection made on June 2, 1977 of his said shop and the relevant documents by PW. 1 Suresh Kumar Shori, Enforcement Inspector and PW. 3 Harnath Singh, Enforcement Officer of the Supply Department it was noted that 11 Qtls of levy sugar obtained on May 20, 1977 by the petitioner from Anta Kriya Vikarya Sehkari Samiti for the month of April 1977 was not reflected in the Stock Register, that the position of opening stock and the price of the levy sugar as on 2-6-1977 was not mentioned in the list which was though exhibited on the shop but was dated 1-3-1977, that distribution of 1 Qtls 33 Kg. and 500 gm. of levy sugar was wrongly shown as distributed in some ration cards by making entries therein regarding distribution of sugar twice in each of the months of January, 1977 to March 1977. It was also noted that the receipt of sugar was neither communicated to Surpanch, Patwari and Gram Sewak nor the stock register was got signed by two witnesses as required by the permanent instructions issued by the Collector (supplies) Kota. On demand the petitioner refused to show and deliver the stock register to the officers of the Supply Department. The petitioner was thus found to have violated condition Nos. 5,8,10 and 14 of the Authorisation issued by the Tehsildar and 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 18 of the permanent instructions issued by the Collector (supplies) Kota.
4. On a complaint having been filed before him, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota tried the petitioner on the charges of violation of abovementioned conditions which were punishable under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). Since the permanent instructions were not found to have ever been promulgated or published for the knowledge of the petitioner, violation thereof was held as not proved. However, the petitioner was found guilty of the above mentioned terms and conditions of the Authorisation and was, therefore, convicted of the offence under Section 3/7 of the Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 3.00/-. In appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Kota, vide his impugned judgment and order dated 24-8-1993, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence, as made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24-12-1982. Hence this petition under Section 397, Cr.P.C. before this Court.
5. Mr. G.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below leading to the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 3/7 of the Act. The learned counsel, however, submitted that looking to the fact that the offence in the present case was committed in the year 1977 and since then the petitioner has faced the rigorous of long trial release of the petitioner on probation would meet the ends of justice in this case. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the cases of this Court in Jamna Dass v. State of Rajasthan, (1988) 2 Rajasthan LR 848 and Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 Raj LW 149.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, vehemently opposed the prayer made by Mr. Garg. It was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the nature and gravity of the crime and the effect of such crimes upon the morals of the people, their expectations from the benevolent policies of the Government and their faith in the system of administration of criminal justice should not be ignored and overlooked by showing misplaced sympathy to persons causing erosion in the very system. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701 : (1992 Cri LJ 2717).
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Before I proceed to ponder over them I would like to mention that the concurrent finding of the guilt of the petitioner is found, on close examination of the records of the courts below, based on sufficient and reliable evidence. Not that the two officers of the Supply Department, as named above, had given a satisfactory version of the violations of the terms and conditions of the Authorisation issued by the Tehsildar Mangrol to the petitioner but also PW. 4 Bhanwar Lal, an independent witness, had corroborated them in all material particulars and PW 2 Misri Lal, Distt. Supply Officer had given a detailed account of the false entries made by the petitioner in the Distribution register and double entires made in several ration cards. The concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below in their very well reasoned judgments are quite correct. It is also found that on petitioners request the trial in this case was conducted as per procedure prescribed for warrant cases. There had thus been no irregularity in the conduct of proceedings either. Mr. Garg has, therefore, rightly confined himself to the propriety of the sentence passed in this case.
8. Propriety of sentence is to be examined with reference to the facts obtaining in the given case. Consideration of a variety of factors like gravity of the crime its impact and effect on the moral of the society its defenseless and unprotected state of victims, the age of the criminal, his conduct the circumstances under which he committed the crime etc. may help the Court to strike a balance between crime and punishment. There may be cases where admonition to a teen-aged first offender may be considered sufficient punishment for his culpable misbehaviour against a fellow citizen, there may yet be another case where an offence committed by an accused against a person only may be adequately punished by awarding him a sentence of fine. The offender of an uncalculated and not preplanned offence committed against a person may be released on probation with a view to allow him opportunity to mend his erring ways for his own benefit and also to pay some amount by way of compensation to the person against whom he had committed the wrong. Therefore in the matter of imposing punishments befitting the crime not only the circumstances of the offender but also of the victims of his crime shall have to be considered and after taking an over all view of the situation a sentence which does not weaken the credibility of the system rather responds to the society's cry for justice against the offender and upholds the majesty of law and faith of the people in the justice-dispensing institution must be imposed.
9. Offences against the Act 1955 are offences against the society at large. Those are anti-social in character as well as anti-economy in nature. In the socialistic pattern of our society, having wide gaps between social and economic conditions of our people, efforts to fill up such gaps or at least cut short the distance between them as far as possible, have been taken through socio-economic legislation after independence. Orders like order 1976 promulgated under Section 3 of the Act of 1955 are the instances of the legislature efforts to take the fruits of democracy though the measures of Public Distribution System to such fellow citizens who are still handicapped by lack of education resources, means etc. The carriers of such benefits to those deprived citizens are in a sense simply trustees and occupy a fiduciary relationship vis-a-vis the beneficiaries. When such trustees, instead of taking the benefits to the beneficiaries, eat up the very corpus of the trust, they deserve least sympathy. Misplaced sympathy towards them is likely to lead to the nets of scamps, scandals and hawalas, we find ourselves in to-day.
10. It is true the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ishar Dass v. State of Punjab, (1973) 2 SCC 65 : (1972 Cri LJ 874) and seems to have been approved of by this Court in the cases relied upon by Mr. Garg, should receive wide interpretation and should not be read in restricted sense. But as cautioned by the Apex Court in the case of Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadev Ram Chandra Dange, (1974) 1 SCC 167: (1974 Cri LJ 313).
the kindly application of the probation principles is negatived by the imperatives of social defence and the improbabilities of moral proselytisation. No chances can be taken by society with a man whose anti-social operations, disguised as a respectable trade, imperil numerous innocents. He is a security risk. Secondly, these economic offences, committed by white collar criminals are unlikely to be dissuaded by the sentle probationary process. Neither casual provocation nor motive against particular persons but planned profit making from number of consumers furnishes the incentive not easily humanised by the therapeutic probationary measures.
11. This tone of caution echoed by the Apex Court is in conformity with the recommendation of the Law Commission of India made in the 47th Report wherein it was stated that:
...the justification of all sentencing is the protection of society. There are occasions when an offender is so anti-social that his immediate and sometimes prolonged confinement is the best assurance of society's protection. The consideration of rehabilitation has to give way, because of the paramount need for the protection of society.
12. Speaking in the same tone in Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220 the Apex Court again observed that:
...the measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime, the conduct of the criminal, and the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Courts respond to society's cry for justice against the criminal Justice demands that Courts should impose punishments befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victims of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.
13. The Apex Court again reiterated in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 : (AIR 1996 SC 787) that:
It is the nature and gravity of the crime, but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should confirm to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond to the society's cry for justice against. the criminal.
14. The instant case, in my opinion, attracts the above observations of the Apex Court on all fours. Herein, the petitioner was a mature and experienced businessman dealing in foodgrains on wholesale basis. He was entrusted with the duty and authorised to distribute levy sugar to the ration card holder of a village. In the discharge of such a trust the petitioner appears to have behaved in a preplanned manner to enrich himself at the cost of the poor consumers of the essential commodity. He obtained 11 Qtls. of levy sugar on 20-5-1977 but did not reflect the same in the stock register as late as on 2-6-1977. He did not exhibit the stock and the retail price of the sugar in the price list. No explanation for such behaviour was given. When the relevant registers were demanded from him he refused to show and deliver them to the officers of the Supply Deptt. Later on he produced them on 5-6-1977 before the Distt. Supply Officer vide Ex. P11 with the allegation that since he was an active member of Congress Party he had been falsely implicated in the case. At the trial he claimed the trial of the case as a warrant trial case, though the case was triable as a summary trial case Often he sought and was granted exemption from personal attendance in the counsel of the trial. His conduct does not exhibit any repentance for the wrong done to the poor consumers at large. Looking to all these facts and circumstances of this case I find no case for application of the probationary provisions to the case by the petitioner.
15. In the result I find no merits in the petition and dismiss it as such.
16. The petitioner is on bail. He shall forthwith surrender to his bail bonds and be sent to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take effective steps to carry out this order.