-1- Criminal Appeal No.976-SB of 1998. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.976-SB of 1998. Date of Decision: January 08, 2010. Manphool Singh ... Appellant. VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.11.1998 and the sentence order dated -2- Criminal Appeal No.976-SB of 1998. 20.11.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Narnaul, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 7 (1) (a) (i) and 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'). For the former offence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days and for the latter offence he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.800/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The allegations against the appellant were that while he was the holder of depot of fair price under the licence granted by the Food & Supplies Department, he sold 76 bags of wheat in black market. The further allegation against the appellant was that he failed to maintain the sale and stock registers relating to the supply and distribution of wheat and sugar. These facts came to light when the shop of the appellant in Village Bharaph was raided by the checking party on 1.5.1997. Learned counsel for the appellant does not seriously challenge his conviction. He, however, submitted that as the occurrence relates to May, 1997 and the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the appellant for more than twelve and a half years, lenient view in the matter of sentence may be taken against the appellant and that the impugned sentence order may be modified. -3- Criminal Appeal No.976-SB of 1998. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 (1) (a) (i) and 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act, as recorded by the learned trial Judge, is upheld. However, keeping in view the fact that the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the appellant for more than twelve and a half years, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 (1) (a) (i) and 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act, as mentioned above, is reduced to three months, on each count, and fine is increased from Rs.1,000/- i.e Rs.200/- under Section 7 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and Rs.800/- under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act is increased to Rs.50,000/-. I order accordingly. However, both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The appellant will deposit the increased amount of fine in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of increased fine, as mentioned above, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is dismissed. January 08, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE