Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 Date of Decision: 16.04.2009 1. Satish Kumar son of Balle Ram, r/o Ganaur, Tehsil and District Sonipat. 2. Hari Parkash s/o Ram Kumar, r/o Ganaur, Tehsil and District Sonipat. .... Appellants Versus State of Haryana. .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.S. Sullar, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. **** Sham Sunder, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.08.1995, rendered by the Special Judge, (under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955), Sonipat, vide which he convicted and sentenced Satish Kumar and Hari Parkash, accused (now appellants ), for the offence, punishable under Section 7 Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 2 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to be as the 'Act' only) and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of six months each and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 1-1/2 months each. The sale proceeds of the case property i.e. wheat were ordered to be confiscated to the State. The remaining accused namely Randhir, Mahinder, Vinay Kumar, Ram Kumar and Raghbir, were however, acquitted. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.08.1993, Rajinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-4), who was then posted in Police Station Ganaur, was present at the bus stand of Ganaur at Khubru Adda, where he received a secret information that various depot holders, were taking wheat meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System, to Narela Mandi for sale, instead of distributing the same, amongst the ration card holders. He, accordingly, sent ruqa Ex.PC through Ishwar Singh, Constable, for registration of a case, as a result whereof, the FIR Ex.PC/1, for the offence, punishable under Section 7 of the Act, was registered, at 5.30 AM, by Sajjan Kumar, Sub Inspector. Om Parkash, Inspector, Food and Supplies, (PW-2) and Surender Kumar, Sub Inspector, (PW-5), of the said department, were then associated in the picket (nakabandi), held at G.T. Road, near Ganaur Chowk. Three tractors bearing registration No. HRS-8267, HYS-1922 and HYS-2754 Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 3 attached with trolleys were intercepted. The same were being driven by Raghbir, Randhir and Mohinder, respectively ( all since acquitted). Ram Kumar, accused, was sitting in the tractor-trolley, being driven by Randhir, whereas Satish and Hari Parkash, accused were sitting in the tractor-trolley, being driven by Mohinder, accused. 87 bags of wheat were found in the trolley, attached with tractor No. HRS 8267 and 64 bags each of wheat were found in the remaining two trolleys. The total number of wheat bags, being carried in all the tractor-trolleys came to be 215. The same were got weighed. On weighment, it was found that the same contained 103 quintals 5 kgs, 85 quintals 15 kgs, and 84 quintals 5 kgs, of wheat, totaling 275 quintals 25 kgs. The wheat bags were bearing the brand of Confed department. None of the accused could give any proof regarding the ownership of the same. The said bags were accordingly, taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PB. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. Thereafter, various ration depots of the accused were inspected by Om Kumar, Inspector, in the presence of Surinder Kumar, Sub Inspector and Rajinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector. Inspection of the ration depot of M/s Haryana Trading Ganaur, revealed that there was neither any wheat stock, in the same, nor any records were available, whereas in fact 64 bags of wheat, weighing 57 quintals were supplied to the said ration depot, for distribution to the ration card holders, under the Public Distribution Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 4 System. Ex.PB, inspection report, in this regard, was prepared. Similarly, the ration depot of Hari Parkash, accused was inspected and it was found that neither any stock of wheat, nor any record in regard thereto, was available. Inspection report Ex.PF was prepared in connection therewith. On checking of ration depot of Satish Kumar, accused, it was found that there was no record of any sort and there was a stock of 65 bags of wheat against 78 bags, supplied to him, for distribution under the Public Distribution System, by Confed department. Likewise ration depot of Vinay Kumar, accused, was inspected in his absence, in village Ghansoli. However, the said inspection was conducted, in the presence of village Sarpanch, wherein it was revealed that there was neither any stock nor any record with regard to the wheat, available. Inspection report, Ex.PH, in this regard, was prepared. 3. During the course of investigation, Ex.PA, list showing the issuance of wheat on 27.08.1993, by the Confed, was collected from Daya Kishan, Store-keeper, (PW-1). According to the said list, accused Hari Parkash, was issued 47 quintals, 50 kgs., Haryana Trading Company was issued 57 quintals, whereas Satish Kumar, accused was issued 76 quintals and Vinay Kumar, accused was issued 143 quintals 50 kgs. of wheat. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 5 4. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of all the documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Notice under Section 7 of the Act , containing the sum and substance of the accusations, was served upon the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Daya Kishan, Store-keeper, ( PW-1 ), Om Parkash, Inspector, Food & Supplies Department, (PW-2), Kewal Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ( PW-3 ), Rajinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, ( PW-4 ), and Surinder Kumar, Sub Inspector, Food & Supplies Department, (PW-5). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 6.. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Both the accused, (now appellants ) took up the plea that their ration depots were never inspected by any officials of the Food & Supplies Department. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in their defence. 7. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 6 record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced Satish Kumar and Hari Parkash, accused, as stated hereinbefore, whereas Raghbir, Randhir, Mohinder, Vinay Kumar and Ram Kumar, accused were, acquitted of the notice, served upon them. 8. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by Satish Kumar and Hari Parkash, appellants. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, in fact the wheat, which was being carried in the tractor-trolleys, belonged to Raghbir, Randhir and Mohinder, respectively ( all since acquitted), which they were taking to Narela Mandi, for sale. He further submitted that from Ex.DA, DB, and DC, copies of the jamabandies, it was proved that these accused ( all since acquitted ) were agriculturists, owning the land. He further submitted that, thus, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said, that the bags, containing wheat, aforesaid, belonged to the accused ( now appellants ) and they were taking the same for sale, in the open market, instead of supplying the same to the ration card holders, under the Public Distribution System. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 7 correct. No doubt, the jamabandies, aforesaid, were produced on record. From the jamabandies, aforesaid, it was only evident that Raghbir, Randhir and Mohinder, respectively ( all since acquitted), were the owners of the land, depicted therein. In the jamabandies, it was not depicted that they had sown the crop of wheat and harvested the same. From the copies of Khasra girdawaries, it could be deduced, as to whether, wheat crop had been sown by these accused and after harvesting the same they were probably taking the same for the purpose of sale thereof, in the open market. Satish Kumar and Hari Parkash, accused were sitting in the tractor-trolleys. The wheat bags were bearing the label of Confed. Such wheat could only be supplied to the depot holders for sale under the Public Distribution System. It was for Satish Kumar and Hari Parkash, who were sitting in the tractor-trolleys loaded with the aforesaid wheat, as to how they were travelling in the same, when the same could not be said to be public vehicles. If they had no connection whatsoever with the wheat, being carried in the tractor-trolleys, it was for them to explain but they failed to furnish any explanation. The factum that the wheat loaded, in the tractor-trolleys, aforesaid, belonged to the Confed department, which had been supplied to Satish Kumar and Hari Parkash, accused, the depot holders, for the purpose of supply thereof, under the Public Distribution System to the ration card holders, is further strengthened from the circumstance that the Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 8 depots of the accused ( now appellants ) were inspected. Ex.PF is the report with regard to the inspection of the depot of Hari Parkash, accused. According to this report, there was neither any stock of wheat, nor any record available. Hari Parkash, accused, who was present, at the time of inspection, told that 49 bags, containing wheat, were supplied to him, by the Confed Department. It was for him to explain, as to whether, the same had been distributed, amongst the ration card holders, under the Public Distribution System. This could only be proved by him, on the basis of record. The checking of the depot of Satish Kumar, accused ( now appellant ) was also made and Ex.PG, report, in this regard was prepared, wherein 65 bags, containing wheat were found in the stock. Satish Kumar, accused, told that 78 bags, containing wheat had been supplied to him. He could not produce any record with regard to the supply of 13 bags, containing wheat to the ration card holders, under the Public Distribution System. In case, he had supplied 13 bags, containing wheat, which were found short and which had been supplied to him by the Confed department, to the depot holder under the Public Distribution System, he could certainly maintain the record in regard thereto. The presence of both these accused, at the time of inspection and non-production of the record by them regarding the distribution of the wheat, supplied to them by the Confed department, under the Public Distribution System, to the ration card holders, Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 9 indicated that they were carrying the said bags, containing wheat, belonging to the Confed Department in the tractor trolleys for sale in the open market. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to the effect, that the wheat belonged to Raghbir, Randhir and Mohinder, respectively ( all since acquitted), and not to the accused, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the appellants, have been facing the agony of the protracted criminal proceedings since August, 1993, the date when the case was registered against them i.e. for the last more than 15 years and , as such, a lenient view be taken, by granting them the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused (now appellants) committed economic offence. It was not that there was only technical violation of the provisions of the Rules. In this case, an attempt was made by the accused to sell the wheat, supplied to them, by the Confed Department, for supply under the Public Distribution System, to the ration card holders, in the open market. Such type of offences are committed not out of rage or passion, but after calculating the loss and profit fully. Economic offences, are on the increase, by leaps and bounds. These are committed with the sole purpose of minting money. No ground, therefore, is made out, for the grant of benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused ( now Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 10 appellants). The mere fact that they have been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, for the last more than 15 years, also cannot be said to be a ground, to release them, on probation of good conduct, especially when they have committed an economic offence. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference. The same are liable to be upheld. 14. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, are upheld. If the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 15. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgment, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit the compliance report within two months. Crl. Appeal No. 522-SB of 1995 11 16. The District & Sessions Judge, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, and the compliance report is sent within the time frame. 17. The Registry shall keep track of the matter, and put up the compliance, if received, within the time frame. Even if, the same is not received, within the time frame, the matter shall be put up, within 10 days, after the expiry of the same. (SHAM SUNDER) 16.04.2009 JUDGE dinesh