IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.S-731-SB of 1998 Date of Decision : September 21, 2010 Surinder Singh ....Appeallant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Kamal Satija, Advocate for Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. T.P.S. MANN, J. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.1998, Special Judge, Mansa, convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. According to the prosecution, a complaint was received from Balwinder Singh, resident of Lalianwali, Block Jhunir, on the basis of which, Gurditta Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Mansa and Pirthi Singh, Assistant Cotton Extension Officer, Mansa inspected Satish Kumar 2014.03.12 11:14 Criminal Appeal No. S-731-SB of 1998 -2- the premises belonging to M/s Gian Singh Manjit Singh on 27.8.1993 of which the appellant was the sole proprietor. The said concern was found dealing in the business of insecticides under licence No.Pest/Mansa/9/89-90 renewed upto 31.12.1992. The licence was cancelled by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa vide order dated 31.12.1992. The appeal filed by the firm against the cancellation order was pending for hearing. The firm did not apply for the renewal of licence. At the time of the inspection, Gurditta Singh, Insecticide Inspector and Pirthi Singh, Assistant Cotton Extension Officer found that the dealer was not issuing cash/credit memos. to the purchasers, as required, in a proforma prescribed by the Controller; that the stock register of the insecticides and records relating to the sale of insecticides were not being maintained; that the firm was not submitting the statements and returns on the prescribed proforma; and the records relating to the sale and purchase of insecticides were not produced at the time of checking. The appellant was found violating clauses 4 and 6 of the Insecticides (Price Stock, Display and Submission of Reports) Order, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Control Order’). On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 76 dated 4.12.1993 under Section 7 of the Act was registered against the appellant at Police Station City Mansa. Upon appearance of the appellant in the Court of Criminal Appeal No. S-731-SB of 1998 -3- Special Judge, Bathinda, he was charged under Section 7 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Pirthi Singh Mann, Assistant Cotton Extension Officer, PW2 Gurditta Singh, Agricultural Development Officer-cum-Insecticide Inspector, PW3 Balwinder Singh and PW4 Bhupinder Singh. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the file, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW2 Gurditta Singh, Insecticide Inspector and PW1 Pirthi Singh Mann, Assistant Cotton Extension Officer were never authorized either by general or special order to inspect the premises of the Criminal Appeal No. S-731-SB of 1998 -4- appellant and, therefore, any such inspection and the proceedings conducted thereunder were illegal. However, it may be worthwhile to refer to Section 21 of the Insecticides Act, as per which the Insecticides Inspector has power to enter and search any premises in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act or Rule made thereunder has been committed. Similar is the position with the Assistant Cotton Extension Officer and, therefore, they did not require any general or specific authorization to inspect the premises of the appellant. Further, during cross-examination of PW1 Pirthi Singh and PW2 Gurditta Singh, the defence did not challenge their authority to inspect the premises of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that before conducting the inspection, the Insecticide Inspector and Assistant Cotton Extension Officer did not serve any written notice upon the appellant requiring him to produce the record and returns. However, there is no requirement of issuance of any notice in writing to the firm or its managing partners to produce the record. Even otherwise, PW1 Pirthi Singh testified that the record relating to sale and purchase of the insecticides was not produced when demanded. Similar was the deposition of PW2 Gurditta Singh when he stated that the records relating to sale and purchase of insecticides were not produced at the time of checking as required under Rule 6(e) of the Control Order. Therefore, no Criminal Appeal No. S-731-SB of 1998 -5- benefit can be extended to the appellant on account of written notice not being served upon him by the Insecticide Inspector. It is also submitted that at the time of the inspection of the premises of the appellant, no monocrotophos was found which fact was admitted by PW1 Pirthi Singh. However, that by itself will not absolve the appellant of the criminal liability. The prosecution has brought on record the receipt Ex.PB issued by the appellant on the letter-pad of the firm as per which five litres of monocrotophos was sold in favour of Balwinder Singh for a sum of Rs.1,300/-. Said Balwinder Singh appeared before the trial Court as PW3 and confirmed the purchase of five litres of monocrotophos by him for a sum of Rs.1,300/- from the appellant. The said sale by itself is sufficient to hold that the appellant had been dealing in monocrotophos. Lastly, it is submitted that the appellant is facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 17 years. He is a poor person and, therefore, leniency be shown to him in the matter of sentence. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed upon the appellant is on the higher side. Ends of justice would be amply met if the same is reduced to six months. Criminal Appeal No. S-731-SB of 1998 -6- Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is upheld. His sentence of imprisonment is reduced from one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentence of fine, alongwith its default clause, is maintained. But for the reduction in the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 21, 2010 JUDGE satish