RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 648 of 1988

Ramesh Chandra Gupta
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Pradep Kumar, Rajeev Mishra, Vineet
                                  Sankalp
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : A.G.A.

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

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
07.03.1988, passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jalaun at Orai in Criminal
Case No.19 of 1986, whereby the trial court has convicted the appellant
under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to
undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused/appellant, Ramesh
Chand Gupta, was a fair price shop dealer. On 09.11.1985 at about 10.00
A.M., he was apprehended by complainant Deepak Kumar, Ram Naresh,
Lalji Kumar and Hemant Kumar while carrying two bags of sugar on a
Theliya at Hydle Chauraha, situated in town Jalaun for the purpose of selling
the sugar in black market. The Theliya was being driven by one
Rahmatullah.

4. The matter was reported to SDM, Jalaun. On 09.11.1985 the same day
Supply Inspector Bhagwan Das lodged an FIR of the occurrence at Police
Station- Jalaun. The SDM, Jalaun directed the Tehslidar, Jalaun to enquire
into the matter. The Tehsildar, Jalaun reached the shop at about 11.00 A.M.,
which was found closed. The shop was sealed in presence of independent
witnesses. Tehsildar, Jalaun passed an order to proceed against the accused
according to law. The recovered sugar was given in supurdagi of Nayab
Tehsildar Samadhiya.

5. During investigation of the case, it was found that accused Ramesh Chand
Gupta had contravened the provisions of U.P. Sugar Control Order, 1962
and conditions of sugar license which is punishable under Section 3/7 of
                                                          CRLA No. 648 of 1988
                                2

E.C. Act.

6. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The accused Ramesh
Chand Gupta was charged under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act for being found in
illegal possession of 90 kg of sugar, which was carried out by him for sale in
black market. It was also alleged that the accused had made false entries in
sale register of sugar, without distributing sugar to ration card holders and
thereby contravened the provisions of U.P. Foodgrains and Other Essential
Articles Distribution Orders, 1977. Charges were read over to the accused.
He denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses. P.W.-1
Rahmatullah, P.W.-2 Hemant Kumar, P.W.-3 Bhagwan Das and P.W.-4
Harish Chand Singh, which are referred hereinafter :-

P.W.1- Rahmatullah has stated that two years earlier he lifted two gunny
bags of sugar(90 kgs) from the Government fair shop belonging to the
accused which was apprehended by two three boys near Hydle Chauraha in
morning which the accused had given him to carry to Sewaram Bilaiya.

P.W.2- Hemant Kumar stated that about two years nine months earlier at
10 am morning he along with Dipak Kumar and others saw a Thilliyapuller
with two bags of sugar accompanied by the accused Ramesh Chand and
when they asked about the destination the accused denied to disclose the
place. Subsequently they informed S.D.M Jalan who undertook the custody
of sugar. The witness proved the joint complaint as Ext. k-1.

P.W.3- Bhagwan Das was posted as Supply Inspector and stated that
Tahsildar Jalaun reached the shop at 11 am and sealed it. He has proved his
tehrir as Ext. ka-2.

P.W. 4- Harish Chand Singh S.I and I.O stated that prior to him the matter
was being investigated by S.I. Kuril and on his transfer he was given the
case. He has proved the stock register and sale register as Exts. 1 to 6 and
prepared fard as Ext. ka-1. With the help of sale register he verified ration
cards attached with the shop of the accused and found that in ten ration cards
there was no entry of issuing of sugar to ration card holders whereas entries
were there in the registers as proved by him in Ext. Ka-4 and Ext. ka-5. He
has proved sanction accorded by District Magistrate Jalaun to prosecute the
accused as Ext. ka-7; chargesheet as Ext. ka-8, chik FIR as Ext. ka-9 and
copy of G.D as Ext. ka-10.

8. Documentary evidence joint complaint Ext. Ka-1, Tehrir Ext. Ka-2, Fards
Ext. Ka-4 and Ext. Ka-5, report of Supply Inspector regarding Chhijan Ext.
                                                            CRLA No. 648 of 1988
                                 3

Ka-6, to prosecute the accused as Ext. Ka-7, charge-sheet Ext. Ka-8, chik
FIR Ext. Ka-9 and Carbon Copy of G.D. Ext. Ka-10. Stock register Ext. 1 to
6 and Ext. 1 to 6 are available on record.

9. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the
allegations against him and filed certified copy of report of Tehsildar in
defence.

10. After hearing both the parties and considering oral and documentary
evidences on record, the learned trial court returned the finding of guilt and
convicted the accused for offence under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act and
sentenced him to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment.

11. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence, this appeal has been preferred.

12. It is submitted that the conviction of the appellant is against the weight
of evidence on record and the sentence awarded to him is too severe. The
appeal has remained pending before the Court for considerable long period
and has now come up for final hearing.

13. At the time of arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has not seriously assailed the findings of conviction recorded by
the trial court, however, it has been submitted that the incident in question is
very old and the appellant has already undergone incarceration for about 28
days.

14. During the course of proceedings, it has further been submitted that the
appeal has remained pending for about four decades and the appellant has
faced agony of protracted litigation for a long period. It is, therefore, prayed
that while maintaining the conviction, the sentence may be modified to the
period already undergone and the fine may be enhanced.

15. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer but does not dispute
that the matter pertains to an old occurrence and that the appellant has
already undergone a short period of incarceration.

16. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the record, this Court finds that the trial court has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record and the finding of guilt recorded against
the appellant under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act calls for no
interference. The conviction is accordingly affirmed.

17. As regards sentence, it is true that Section 7 of the Essential
                                                                                               CRLA No. 648 of 1988
                                                                    4


                                    Commodities Act prescribes a minimum punishment of three months
                                    imprisonment but the proviso empowers the court for special and adequate
                                    reason to impose a lesser sentence.

                                    18. In the present case, the occurrence is of several decades old, the appeal
                                    has remained pending for about 38 years, the appellant has faced the agony
                                    of protracted litigation during this long period. There is no material
                                    indicating any previous conviction of the appellant. He has already
                                    undergone 28 days of incarceration. These mitigating factors contribute
                                    special reasons within the meaning of the said proviso. This Court finds it
                                    just and proper to reduce the substantive sentence to the period already
                                    undergone.

                                    19. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence imposed
                                    upon the appellant is modified to the extent of imprisonment for a period of
                                    28 days that is already undergone and with a fine to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

                                    20. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount of fine within 30 days
                                    from receiving a certified copy of this judgment. In default, he shall undergo
                                    the substantive sentence as directed by the trial court.

                                    21. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with aforesaid modification.

                                    22. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the trial court for necessary
                                    compliance.

                                    January 27, 2026
                                    P. Pandey
                                                                                (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad