RAM MURATversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2684 of 1988

Ram Murat
                                                                      .....Appellant(s)
                                       Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                               :    Jitendra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent(s)                              :    A.G.A.

Court No. - 93
            HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. None appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal.

3. Record shows that this appeal is of the year 1988 and the appellant
namely Ram Murat, who were granted bail by this court vide order dated
28.11.1988, while admitting this appeal is ever since then, enjoying the
liberty of bail.

4. On 17.12.2025 a coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following
order :-

     "1. List has been revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant.

     2. Vide order dated 12.11.2025, bailable warrant was issued against the
     appellant.

     3. It is stated in the report of C.J.M. Prayagraj dated 15.12.2025, that the
     appellant-Ram Murat could not be traced out at the given address.

     4. Let non-bailable warrant be issued against the appellant and the
     concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to get the non-bailable
     warrant executed and ensure the arrest of the appellant through
     concerned Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police
     under intimation within one month.

     5. The office is directed to send the details of sureties with photocopy of
     the bail bonds indicating the details of the sureties of the appellant to the
     Chief Judicial Magistrate forthwith so that appropriate action be taken
     against the sureties also under Section 446 Cr.P.C., in case non-bailable
                                                             CRLA No. 2684 of 1988
                                   2

     warrant is not executed.

     6. List this case on 29.01.2026."

5. The office report dated 28.1.2026 is delineated below :-

     "In compliance of Hon'ble Court's order dt. 17-12-25, a letter dt. 28-01-
     26 (at flag 'D') has been received from Commissioner of Police,
     Prayagraj wherein it is stated that appellant Ram Murat could not be
     traced out and his whereabouts are not known. Both the sureties of the
     appellant have died."

6. Office vide it's report dated 29.1.2026 has reported as follows :-

     "It is humbly submitted that the C.J.M., Prayagraj vide leter dated
     28.1.26 (at flag 'E') has reported that appellant Ram Murat could not be
     traced out.

     Both the sureties of the appellant namely Prithivi Lal and Maiku Lal have
     died."

7. To cut a long story short, I do not find any prospect of the accused-
appellant- Ram Murat, who are absconding, being traced out and produced
before this Court. It is apparent that they are not interested in the disposal of
this appeal and has abused the liberty of bail by failing to appear before this
Court despite non-bailable warrants. Proceeding under Section 446 Cr.P.C.
was initiated against the sureties of the appellant, but it has been reported
that the sureties of the appellant have died. The question which arises before
us is that whether this Court is bound to wait perennially for the accused-
appellants till the accused-appellants are searched, if at all, and produced
before us and keep on adjourning the hearing of this appeal.

8. Faced with the aforesaid contingency and looking to the huge pendency of
cases before this Court, I am not inclined to pass over this appeal. Under
identical circumstances, the Apex Court, after a comprehensive analysis of
previous decisions on the issue, has distilled the legal position into six
propositions in paragraph 19 of its judgment delivered in the case of K.S.
Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721 :

     "19.1 That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution
     simpliciter without examining the merits;

     19.2 That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the
     appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent;
                                                                CRLA No. 2684 of 1988
                                   3

     19.3 That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn
     the matter but it is not bound to do so;"

     19.4 That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and
     judgement of the trial court;

     19.5 That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it
     would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate
     the appearance of the appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and
     if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a
     lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the
     court from doing so; and

     19.6 That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant,
     the higher court can remedy the situation."

9. Thus, in view of the legal position propounded by the Apex Court in the
case of K.S. Panduranga (supra), I proceed to examine this appeal on
merits qua appellant- Ram Murat with assistance of Sri Rahul Asthana,
learned A.G.A. for the State. I have perused the lower court record and heard
learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

10. By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the
validity and sustainability of the Judgment and order dated 15.11.1988
passed by learned Special Judge, (Essential Commodities Act), in Case No.9
of 1987 arising out of Crime No.30 of 1984, under Section 3/7 of the
Essential Commodities Act, whereby convicting the appellant and
sentencing the appellant to undergo one year R.I. alongwith fine Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine appellant shall undergo six month R.I.

11. In nutshell, the prosecution story is that on 7.6.1984 under the instruction
of S.D.M., Meja, Sri K.R. Pundir-P.W.1 checked the vehicle near village
Bahraiya where there is a barrier. The Truck No.USF 1028 was loaded with
74 bags of gram; 32 and half quintal of rice; 3 and half quintal of wheat; 18
quintal of Khali and three quintal of Alsi. The Truck was intercepted at 7:30
A.M.. There were no papers with the accused who was driving the vehicle,
The accused did not disclose the name of the owner. The accused was
arrested. A fard Exhibitt Ka-1 was prepared. The case was investigated by
Sri Shiv Prasad Singh Sub-Inspector. He inspected the place of occurrence
and prepared the site plan Echibit Ka-5 and submitted the charge-sheet
Exhibit Ka-6. The formal proof has been dispensed with and these two
                                                          CRLA No. 2684 of 1988
                                 4


document have been admitted. The chick F.I.R. Exhibit Ka-3 and the copy
of G.D. Exhibit Ka-4 have been admitted by the defence. The District
Magistrate has accorded the sanction Exhibit Ka-2, proved by P.W.1 Sri K.
R. Punder.

12. Learned trial Judge after considering the case on its merit returned
aforesaid finding of conviction and sentenced the accused-appellant under
Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to one year
rigorous imprisonment with default stipulations.

13. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the appellant
has preferred the instant criminal appeal.

14. Bare perusal of the record itself is indicative of fact that Truck No.USF
1028 was loaded with 74 bags of gram; 32 and half quintal of rice; 3 and half
quintal of wheat; 18 quintal of Khali and three quintal of Alsi. The Truck
was intercepted at 7:30 A.M.. There were no papers with the accused who
was driving the vehicle, The accused did not disclose the name of the owner.
The accused was arrested.

15. In my considered opinion, possessing food grains without a valid license
is a punishable offense, and there can be no defense to claim the goods
belonged to someone else. The trial court noted that a prompt F.I.R. was
registered and the District Magistrate had properly sanctioned the case. The
accused was caught with a significant quantity of goods: 74 bags of gram, 33
bags of Rice, Wheat, Khali, and Alsi. The U.P. Foodgrains Dealers
(Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order prohibits possessing such
quantities without a license.

16. Under the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any
deliberate attempt to falsely rope in the accused-appellants in this case, while
allowing the real culprit to go scot-free.

17. It is established principle of criminal jurisprudence that testimony of eye-
witnesses cannot be thrown away.

18. There is no case or circumstance either existing or emerging after
contemplating various aspects of this case qua evidence on record against
the appellant.

19. The learned trial judge while considering the various aspects of the case
                                                                                              CRLA No. 2684 of 1988
                                                                    5


                                    and various specific facets regarding the commission of the crime and the
                                    incident itself has elaborated a well-reasoned and detailed judgment,
                                    scrutinzing and analyzing each and every vital aspect of the case and
                                    judgment of conviction has been recorded after proper scrutiny of the
                                    evidence and facts on record.

                                    20. In view of above, it may be conveniently summed up that the trial Judge
                                    has taken into consideration various aspects of the case and has appraised
                                    facts and testimony of prosecution witnesses in right prospective and has
                                    rightly recorded finding of conviction and sentenced the appellant for
                                    offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to
                                    one year rigorous imprisonment with default stipulations, which is just
                                    punishment and would meet the ends of justice.

                                    21. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is obvious that this appeal lacks merit
                                    and is dismissed accordingly.

                                    22. The appellant is at large. The trial court is expected to leave no stone
                                    unturned for ensuring arrest of the appellant to enable him to serve out the
                                    sentence imposed by the judgment of the trial court.

                                    23. Let a copy of this order/judgment be certified to the court below
                                    forthwith for necessary information and follow up action.

                                    January 29, 2026
                                    Dev
                                                                                (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal, J.)




Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad