Mahinder Pal v. State Of Haryana

Amar Dutt, J. - Mohinder Pal appellant is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Special Judge, Sirsa on 22nd of September, 1995.

2. The case against the petitioner was registered on 3.5.1994, in Police Station, Ding after the report of the analysis conducted by the Analytical Chemist in Quality Control Laboratory (Fertilizer) Hisar that the sample of fertilizer bags stocked by the appellant in the house of Hukam Chand collected by Quality Control Inspector Budh Ram Bishnoi, were found to be of sub- standard. After the filing of the report and completion of the investigation conducted pursuant thereto, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court.

3. After going through the papers, a charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed and notice containing the substance of accusation was served on the appellant before the commencement of the trial, to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. The trial Court examined Jai Pal Singh PW-1, Budh Ram PW-2, Head Constable Krishan Chander PW-3, Dalip Singh PW-4, SI Darshan Singh PW-5, Hukam Chand PW-6, Mool Singh PW-7, Banwari Lal PW-8, Gurjinder Singh PW-9 and Preetpal Singh PW-10.

5. On completion of the trial, the trial Court recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and claimed innocence. He pleaded that he had differences with Mool Singh PW-7 due to liquor vend in his shop adjacent to his shop as drunkards created nuisance there and said Mool Singh got the appellant implicated falsely in this case.

6. In defence, the appellant examined Jai Singh as DW-1.

7. After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court found that the samples were spurious and of sub-standard and accordingly convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

9. The short point on which the appeal has been argued is that the appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 7 of the Act and, therefore, though he is to be punished with a maximum imprisonment for one year yet there is no minimum sentence prescribed and in view of the fact that a period of over 10 years have elapsed, it is submitted that no useful purpose would be served by putting the appellant behind the bars and the sentence imposed upon him should be suitably modified.

ed accordingly. Such a course may, in my opinion, provide the requisite deterrent to the appellant and others like him who are more in love with money and the profits made by them than their respectability.

11. Except for the above modification, this appeal fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.