[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.402 OF 1991 1. Shridhar Narhar Motewar ] Aged 54 years, ] Occ: business ] 2. Baburao Pandurang Jadhav ] Age 40 years, ] Occ: Business, ] Both resident of ] Pandharpur, Dist.Solapur ]..Appellants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondents .... Mr.A.A.Joshi Advocate for Appellant No.2 Appeal abates qua Appellant no.1. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JANUARY 13, 2009 DATE : JANUARY 13, 2009 DATE : JANUARY 13, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appellants-original accused nos.1 and 2 have challenged judgment and order dated 19.6.1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, Solapur in Criminal Case No. 2 of 1990. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge Solapur convicted the original accused no.1 under Rule 7 of [-2-] the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1975 for contravening the provisions of Sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 r.w. clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act. The original accused no.2 was convicted under Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1975 for contravening the provisions of Sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 r.w. clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act. Both of them came to be sentenced for the offences committed by them to S.I. for six months with fine of Rs.2000/- i/d S.I. for three months. 2. As far as appellant no.1-original accused no.1 is concerned, he expired during the pendency of this appeal, hence this appeal as far as appellant no.1 is concerned, abates. Thus, this appeal is being considered only in respect of appellant no.2. 3. The prosecution case briefly stated is that accused no.2 was working as Manager at Retail Shop No.3 at Pandharpur which is a Government recognised [-3-] fair price shop run by Co-operative Society. Scheduled commodities including edible oil, sugar etc. of the said fair price were being stored in the Government Godown at Pandharpur. Out of the said stock, accused no.2 sold tins of palm oil and sugar to original accused no.1. Palm oil and sugar were meant for sale only in the rationing shops, however, accused no.2 sold palm oil and sugar to accused no.1 directly and not through fair price shop. Thus, there was breach of Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1975. 4. I have heard the learned advocate for the appellant no.2-original accused no.2 and the learned APP for Respondent-State. Perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the record pertaining to the present case. 5. The learned advocate for the appellant no.2 has submitted that it is the specific prosecution case that original accused no.2 had sold tins of palm oil and sugar to original accused no.1. He has further submitted that there is no reliable material to show that it was accused no.2 who sold [-4-] the tins of palm oil and sugar to original accused no.1. He has pointed out that no material has been adduced by the prosecution to show that original accused no.2 sold the said goods to original accused no.1. It is true that there is no material adduced by the prosecution that accused no.2 actually sold the said goods to accused no.1. However, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that at this stage, he is not challenging the conviction of the appellant no.2-original accused no.2. He submitted that looking to the age of the appellant and his health condition, the sentence may be reduced to the period undergone by the appellant no.2-original accused no.2. It is seen that the case pertains to the year 1989 i.e. the incident had occurred about 20 years ago, the age of accused no.2 today is almost 63 years. Accused no.2 was present in Court. He looked extremely frail and weak. Looking to these facts, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on accused no.2. 6. In the result, the conviction of the appellant no.2-accused no.2 under Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) [-5-] Order, 1975 for contravening the provisions of Sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 read with clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act imposed by judgment and order dated 19.6.1991 passed by Special Judge, Solapur in Criminal Case No 2 of 1990, is confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from six months SI to the period already undergone by the appellant no.2-accused no.2 and he is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.2000/- i.e. total amount of Rs.4,000/- (earlier fine of Rs.2000/- plus additional fine of Rs.2,000/-) i/d S.I. for three months. It is stated that earlier fine amount of Rs.2,000/- has been deposited by the appellant before the trial Court. On the request of the learned advocate for the appellant, four weeks time is granted to deposit additional fine amount of Rs.2000/-. If the fine amount is not deposited within stipulated time, appellant shall be taken in custody to undergo the in default sentence. 7. Appeal is partly allowed. [-6-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]