y<^> '^•^^^^Si^ ''^'•'^i^:.'^s:i^'' ;.g .'•:^B^''^'!^^^;^:^>^ffil?^^&'^l^^^»^- ^|^|||^|||||@|||IJ|ES|||g||^|^§@|^ ^?':; ,:;.';';/.i.' ^l::^":%^i:%;;:''V^ ;?^&'B^^^^ •^^^§ a^«^^Q||_ji|_g^|8^|^Q^^|1 :^^|%K&Biaa^.&^aBi,|^ ^''^'^'£N^fct%I^^M%a&%^^ ^'€;'5^%£S^^I^Ni^^a|U||i:^ ^rJ'':'l:::N^ife%^^"^%y*B^ ^:s^£'I^^M^^N^'»ff%^ m I^S^NB^,^.,^ste.^:lMa^aS^^hg .6^:aK^M^^f^$i&K.SSi. ;®6^ -*»>. !!! ]':r E^^-K^^!7 HI-ITH^ ^wJy,,i/ s^- ice rriTinKer Crin-iinal Appsat No. 556 of 1994 Brahamanand Khiyani S. another. 5TaTe Shri Sunii Tripathi, counse! for the appellants. Shri Vaibhav (Soverdhan, P L for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL .4PP6AL UN&ER SECTION 374 (25 OF THE CODE OF •?->.l irl<?>'n'fr'f^^ nrtninc^' 'thff ii ir'/ S UUUS^Jt3 1& U Ei ~%'^ i ssy uuuif iK> i i ns' lUUSrilliC'? 1! SJt Vi dated 6.5.1994 possed by the Special Judge, .An'bikapur' at Sarguja in Speciai Case No. 3/1990 convictlng the accused/appe.llants under Ssction 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for vioiation. of M.P. Pulses and Edible Oils Dealers Licencing Order, 1977 and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simpie imprisonment for 20 days. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.4.1990 the grocery shop of th.e Gppeliants was inspected by Food Inspector R.P. Singh (PW-2),and Deputy Coliector Abdui Lateef Khan (PVV-1), upon ph^sica! verification total 21 quintals of puises of yarious yarieties was found to B& in excess. On the basis of complaint (Ex.P-l) made by Deputy Couector Abdul Lateef Khan (PW-1), ease was registered and after investigOTion chaiian wcs filed on '.6.1990 against the accused/appellants <md accordingiy they were prosecuted. 2 -•^l^w... sSSS' 3. So as to hold the accused/appeliants guilty, prosecution has examined as many os 4 witne-sses in support of its co.se. Statements of the accused/appellants were aiso recorded under Sectio.n 313 of the Code of Crimlnal Procedure in wh'ch they denied the charge jevelted against them ond pleaded thei" innocence and fatse implication in the co.se. 4. After hsaring counsel for fhe parties the trlal Court hos convicted and ssntenced • the accused/appellants for the offence as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Heard counsel for the parties ond perused the material availabte on record including judgment impugned. 6. Counsei for the appellcuits submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction port' of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence pcrt thereof only. Accprding to him, the incident had taken place in the year 1990 i.e. about 20 years back, appellants have suffered a lot in facing the litigation for these 20 long years, on!y allegation against them is that 21 quintais of pulses of different varieties were found in excess without having vaiid iicence for the same, and the applicants are now aged about 56, 60 years, respectively, no useful purpose would be served in sending them to jail and it would be in the interest of justice jf the appellants are sentenced only by imposing fine qmount. He submits that sentence of fine as imposed by the 'iti. trial Courf- may be enhanced substantiaily. In suppori- of this submission, counsel for the appel'ants placed reliance on the iatest decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. RP6 Life Sciences Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Stote of Tamii Nadu with M/s. Sri Mahaveer Pharma Agencies Vs. State of Bl 1 .:l!tS.:-Bg!S'lr Tamii Nadu reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3159. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. In the present case, the incident is of 9.4.1990 and in the pecuiiar facts of this case it may not be desirable to send the appetlants to jai! after a lapse of about 20 years. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice woutd meet if while maintoining the conviction of the appellcnts, instead of sending them to serve out three months of rigorous imprisonment, the sentence of fine is substantially increased. 9. In view of above, the appeal is partly ailowed. Conviction part' of the impugned judgment is maintained. Instead of sending the appellants to jail, the fine amount of Rs.500 each, imposed by the triai Court is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each. Appellants. ore directed to deposit this additional amount of Rs.15,000 each, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if this amount is not deposited within the said period, this order would not be of sny avail to the accused and they will have to serve out the sentence as directed by the trial Court. -tO. Appeal thus party succeeds. Sd/ Pritmker Biwakcr Judge •*ta-