Krishan Pal v. State of U.P

Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 364 of 1987 Appellant :- Krishan Pal Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- P.K.Jain,Vishesh Rajvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Present appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Krishan Pal against the judgment and order dated 24.1.1987 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Special Case No.12/9 of 1985 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar convicting the appellant under section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and imposing sentence for three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- with the stipulation of default clause.

¶2The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the record, are that the accused appellant, who was a retail dealer of fertilizers at Shamli, was having shop in the name of 'Malik Khaad Bhandar'. On 7.8.1984 at 12.00 noon, surprise checking of his shop was made by S.D.M. Kairana, Additional District Agriculture Officer and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the stock of Urea was found short in the stock register. Thus, the accused was found to have committed the contravention of the provisions of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1957. After completing necessary legal formalities on spot, FIR was lodged against the accused appellant. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him before the Court.

¶3The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.W.-1 Vijendra Singh, Additional District Agriculture Officer, Kairana, P.W.-2 Yagya Dutt Sharma, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, P.W.-3 H.C. Dharam Pal, Head Moharrir, P.W.-4 J.P. Sharma, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and P.W.5 S.I. Baljeet Singh, the Investigating Officer. The facts of the case were proved by P.W.-1, PW-2, and PW-4 in their deposition and P.W.-3 and PW-5 proved the proceedings of the investigation and also the FIR and G.D. of the case. Relevant documents were also filed and proved by the prosecution.

¶4Though the accused appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted the factum of alleged checking but it was stated that 28 bags of Urea were sold by him to one Mahendra Singh, who had already loaded them in his tractor trolley but the cash memo was yet to be issued. In defence evidence, D.W.1 Mahendra Singh was examined as defence witness to prove the innocence of the accused person in the matter.

¶5The trial Court after perusing the record and analysing the oral and documentary evidence produced against the accused-appellant recorded a finding that the evidence rendered by the prosecution is trustworthy. The prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused-appellant was found guilty for violating the provisions of Fertilizers Control Order, 1957 and conviction was recorded accordingly and the accused-appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the said offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act alongwith default sentence.

¶6Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that he does not wish to press the appeal on merits and confines his arguments to the sentence part only. The attention of this Court has been drawn towards the provisions of section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act which provides that for adequate and special reasons mentioned, the sentence imposed may be less than three months. It has been submitted that at present the appellant is an old aged person and must be a repenting man. The appeal was filed in the year 1987 and about 37 years have passed. The incident is said to be occurred in the year 1984. He was a young man of 30 years in the year 1986 at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC and now he is a man aged about 70 years. It has been further submitted that the appellant has already suffered since long on account of the pendency of the present criminal proceedings going on against him. It has also been submitted that the appellant in this case has been detained in jail for some days. The Trial Court has passed a sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. It has been submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order may be modified to the extent of the period already undergone.

¶8The learned A.G.A. has made no objection to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant on the point of sentence and submitted that in view of the long pendency of the criminal proceedings against the appellant, the sentence imposed by the trial Court may be reduced.

¶9From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the findings and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are on the basis of the evidence and facts on record which require no interference. The conviction of the appellant has been correctly recorded by the trial Court.

¶10The principle of law is well settled that the principle of proportionality between the punishment and crime cannot be brushed aside and the sentence must be just and proper. No doubt the concept of proportionality permits of discretion to the Court but the same has to be guided by certain principles. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Bala vs. State of Haryana & Ors (passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.4099-4100 of 2015) in this context, has observed that neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. There can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. Similarly an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a Court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment. A Court while imposing sentence has to keep in view the various complex matters in mind. In respect of certain offences, sentence can be reduced by giving adequate special reasons but the special reasons have to rest on real special circumstances.

¶11In the instant case, criminal machinery came into motion about 37 years ago and the present appeal has been pending for a long period of 30 years. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant is a previous convict or having any criminal antecedents. Also the accused-appellant alone cannot be held responsible for long delay in disposal of this appeal. He is an old person. It has been submitted and also finds support from the record that the appellant remained in custody for some days during trial. Hence, considering all aspects of the matter, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by sending accused-appellant in judicial custody at this stage, rather in the aforesaid special circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice if sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial court be modified to the extent that the sentence of the period already undergone is imposed.

¶12Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Act is upheld but the sentence of three months simple imprisonment awarded by the trial court vide impugned judgment and order is modified to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

¶13A copy of this order alongwith trial court record be transmitted to the court concerned. Order Date :- 13.8.2024 safi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad