[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.570 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ]..Appellant Vs. 1. Shridhar Narhar Motewar ] Aged 54 years, ] Occ: business ] 2. Baburao Pandurang Jadhav ] Age 40 years, ] Occ: Business, ] Both resident of ] Pandharpur, Dist.Solapur ]..Respondents .... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for Appellant-State Mr.Ajit M.Savagave Adv. for Mr.S.S.Patwardhan Advocate for Respopndent no.1 Mr.A.A.Joshi Advocate for Respondent no.2 .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JANUARY 06, 2009 DATE : JANUARY 06, 2009 DATE : JANUARY 06, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant that is State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal for enhancement of sentence awarded to the Respondents-original accused nos.1 and 2 by the learned Special Judge, Pandharpur. By judgment and order dated 19.6.1991 in Criminal Case [-2-] No. 2 of 1990, the learned Special Judge Solapur convicted both the original accused under Rule 7 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 and sentenced them to S.I. for six months with fine of Rs.2000/- i/d S.I. for three months. Being aggrieved by the quantum of sentence, this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of sentence imposed on the accused. 2. As far as respondent no.1-original accused no.1 is concerned, he expired during the pendency of this appeal, hence this appeal as far as respondent no.1 is concerned, abates. Hence, this appeal is being considered only in respect of respondent no.2. 3. Heard the learned APP for the appellant-original complainant and the learned advocate for the respondent no.2-i.e. original accused no.2. Perused the judgment and order as well as the record pertaining to the present case. [-3-] 4. The prosecution case briefly stated is that original accused no.2 was working as Manager at Retail Shop No.3 at Pandharpur which is a Government recognised 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, original 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, original accused no.2 sold palm oil and sugar to accused no.1 directly and not through fair price shop. 5. Firstly, it is seen that acts of the accused are punishable for a term which shall not be less than three months which may extend to seven years and fine. The learned Special Judge has awarded sentence of six months and fine of Rs.2000/- i.d. S.I. for three months. It is seen that original accused no.1 has expired during the pendency of this appeal. Moreover, the case pertains to the year 1991 i.e. the incident had occurred about 17 [-4-] years ago, the age of respondent no.2 today is almost 60 years. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and the above facts, at this stage, I do not think that it is a fit case for enhancement of sentence. Appeal is dismissed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]