Delhi District Court
State vs . Harkali Devi on 17 November, 2014
State vs. Harkali Devi
IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State vs. Harkali Devi
FIR No. 244/05
U/sec. 7/10/55 EC Act
PS: Gandhi Nagar
Date of institution of the case: 07.04.2008
Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved
Date on which judgment is delivered: 17.11.2014
Unique I. D. No.02402R0041762008
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 14/3
b) Date of commission of the offence : 20.05.2005
c) Name of the complainant : Farzana Begum, Inspector
Food & Supply, Circle 41, Gandhi
Nagar, Delhi.
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Harkali Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Kirori Lal,
R/o H. No. X-662, Gali No. 6,
Raghubar Pura, I, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of or proved : Sec. 7/10/55 EC Act
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Convicted
FIR No. 244/05 Page No. 1 of 6
State vs. Harkali Devi
h) Date of such order :17.11.2014
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that the accused Harkali was a dealer in kerosene oil having been granted licence No. 2305/81 in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Kerosene Oil (Export & Price) Control Order, 1962 made by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of its powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Government of India, Ministry of Mines & Fuels S. No. 3524 dated 13th November, 1962. On 20.05.2005, Ms. Farzana Begum, Inspector of Circle-41, Food & Supply Department conducted a raid in the shop of the accused Ms. Harkali and 151.24 litres of kerosene oil was found less from the stock. Therefore, the present FIR No. 244 was registered at police station Gandhi Nagar u/sec 7 of Essential Commodities Act. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court. Consequently, the accused was summoned to face the trial. On her appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to her as per norms.
Thereafter, the charge under section 7 of the Act was framed against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 244/05 Page No. 2 of 6 State vs. Harkali Devi With a view to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution has examined only two witnesses.
PW1 Ms. Farzana Begum was the complainant, who set the criminal law into motion. PW2 Sh. Anil Kumar, Inspector, Food and Supply, Circle-40, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, had accompanied the raiding team.
However, the ld. Counsel for the accused, during midst of prosecution evidence, has moved an application for pleading guilty.
It is no more res-integra that an accused can plead guilty at any stage of trial and in this regard reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra etc vs. Sukhdeo Singh and Anr 1992 AIR 2100=1992 SCR (3) 480.
I have explained the consequences of pleading guilty and the allegations leveled by the prosecution in vernacular to the accused Harkali, however, she has reiterated her plea of guilt and stated that she is voluntarily pleading guilty without any force, pressure or undue influence after understanding the nature of allegations. I am of the considered view that the accused Harkali has understood the nature of the allegations levelled against her and that plea of guilt is made voluntarily without any pressure or undue influence after understanding the allegations, hence the same is FIR No. 244/05 Page No. 3 of 6 State vs. Harkali Devi accepted. Accordingly, the accused Harkali Devi, in view of the statement recorded separately, is held guilty and convicted for the offence charged with. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in open
Court on 17th day of Nov, 2014 (Babita Puniya)
MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi
17.11.2014
This judgment contains 04 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 17.11.2014 FIR No. 244/05 Page No. 4 of 6 State vs. Harkali Devi FIR No. 244/05 PS Gandhi Nagar 17.11.2014 Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Convict in person with counsel.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Ld. Counsel for the convict has submitted that the convict is an old lady of about 71 years of age and is suffering from various old-age ailments. He further submitted that she is first time offender and has already suffered much agony on account of the protracted trial and the Damocles' sword has been hanging on her head for about 10 years.
Per contra, it is submitted by the ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that she does not deserve any sympathy or leniency from the court as she was dealing with an essential commodity like kerosene.
I have heard the arguments and perused the records very carefully. Certainly, kerosene was an essential commodity within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 2A of the Act but the convict is a senior citizen of 71 years of age and is repenting for her act. She has clean antecedents and this is claimed to be a solitary aberration of her life. In my considered opinion no useful purpose would be served by now sending her to jail. It would neither work as detriment nor would be corrective in nature. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the convict, owing to the above-said mitigating circumstances in her favour, deserve leniency in the matter of sentence. The ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of court with fine of Rs.3000/-. In default of FIR No. 244/05 Page No. 5 of 6 State vs. Harkali Devi fine, she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Fine paid. Bail bond stands cancelled. Surety discharged. Original documents, if any, be handed over to the person entitled thereto on acknowledgment. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 17.11.2014 FIR No. 244/05 Page No. 6 of 6