Criminal Appeal No. 937-SB of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Appeal No. 937-SB of 1997 Date of Decision: 21.4.2008 Ravinder Kumar …Appellant Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Appellant Ravinder Kumar son of Babu Lal has been convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, Gurgaon under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) for contravention of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance Quality Order 1977, issued under Section 3 of the Act as there was shortage of about 1100 liters of kerosene oil in the stock of depot of the accused, which could not be explained by him. He was sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that he shall further undergo imprisonment for three months. Criminal Appeal No. 937-SB of 1997 2 On 20.11.1997, appellant had paid the fine and the sentence of imprisonment had been suspended by the Court of learned Special Judge, Gurgaon, in order to enable him to file the present appeal in this Court. On 7.11.1995, police party under the command of Banwari Lal, Inspector, on receipt of a secret information raided the premises of appellant who was depot holder in Gopal Nagar area, Gurgaon. It is also stated that customers who were standing there on seeing the police party ran away. One Shamsher Singh was found standing there. One drum filled with kerosene oil and the other drum containing some kerosene oil along with funnel and a measure were taken into possession along with stock register, sales register and entitlement cards of the consumers. Prosecution examined PW.1 Sarwan Kumar, Draftsman, PW.2 Shamsher Singh who was found present at the depot, PW.3 Banwari Lal, Inspector, and PW.4 Jitender Gupta, Sub Inspector, Food & Supplies Department, Gurgaon, who had explained the entries in the sales register Ex.P2 certified by him. Learned trial Court held that there is no material to hold that the accused was selling the kerosene oil in black market. However, learned trial Court found that the accused has not been able to explain shortage of 1100 liters of kerosene oil. Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate, appearing for Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the appellant stated that in the present case occurrence pertains to year 1995. Appellant has already suffered protracted trial of about 11 years and he was only sentenced to three months rigorous Criminal Appeal No. 937-SB of 1997 3 imprisonment. He has placed reliance on judgment of this Court rendered in Silak Ram v. Haryana State 2005(2) Recent Criminal Reports 843 wherein it was held as under:- “6. With regard to quantum of sentence, I feel that the appellant deserves a concessional tilt. The occurrence relates to the year 1984. By now, the appellant has already suffered the ordeal of protracted trial. In my view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant is ordered to be released on probation instead of awarding him the substantive sentence. My view is fortified by a latest judgment of this Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 286-SB of 1990, Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 28.5.2003; in which while placing reliance on Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR (Crl.) 563 (P&H): 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 652 and Niranjan and another v. State of Haryana, 1992(3) Crimes 1069 and upholding the conviction of the appellant for the charge under Section 7 of the Act had directed the release of the appellant on probation of good conduct”. Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Virender Kumar v. State of Haryana 2004(2) Recent Criminal Reports 775, and Krishna Grover v. State of Haryana 2003(3) Recent Criminal Reports 651. Criminal Appeal No. 937-SB of 1997 4 I am of the considered opinion that besides the above cited judgments, submission of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant should be released on probation is further fortified by placing reliance on Rajinder v. State of Haryana 2004(4) Recent Criminal Reports 910 and Subhash Chand vs. State of Punjab 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports 332. Taking into consideration protracted trial, the accused is also ordered to be released on probation. Since learned counsel for the appellant has not contested the conviction of appellant and placed reliance upon the judgments mentioned above, I uphold the conviction of the appellant, however, direct that he be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months and to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during the said period of six months. I have been persuaded to take this view by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that he was not a previous convict and in the last 13 years, he has committed no offence and living a life of honest citizen. The appeal is disposed off in above terms. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 21, 2008 “DK”