Decided on November 29,1973

Ramachandra Agarwalla And Ors. Respondents


R.N.Misra, J. - (1.) THE State of Orissa has applied for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court as provided under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against the final order passed by one of us (Panda, J.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 131 of 1973 and the connected matters on applications made under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The consolidated order of this Court is reported in Ramchandra Agarwal v. State : 39 (1973) C.L.T. 915.
(2.) EIGHT dealers in groundnut oil were individually prosecuted under Section 20(e) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 and three separate instances of forward contract were picked up as the subject matter of prosecution. The learned trying Magistrate convicted them and imposed a consolidated fine of Rs. 2, 000/ - with a default sentence of three months ' simple imprisonment in each of the cases. The learned Sessions Judge while dealing with the appeals of the accused persons found that while the Act had provided a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - as the minimum punishment, the trial Court had imposed a consolidated fine of Rs. 2,000/ - for three offences. In his view such sentence has not in accordance with law as contained in Section 367(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While sustaining this conviction, he set aside the consolidated sentences of fine and recommended under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to this Court to pass appropriate sentences. Eight revision applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were filed by the accused persons. Eight Reference Cases were also registered in this Court. One of us (Misra, J.) gave the following direction on the reference applications. Admit. Issue notice fixing 20 -3 -1972 for appearance. The acceptance of the reference may have the effect of enhancement of the sentence. Let clear notice be given to show cause against enhancement of sentence.... The criminal revisions and the criminal references were beard together by one of us (Panda, J.) and by judgment dated 7 -5 -1973, the conviction in each case was sustained and in place of fine, rigorous imprisonment was awarded.
(3.) THEREUPON eight applications one in each case were issued purporting to be under Sections 56 I -A and 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for review so far as the sentence was concerned contending, inter alia,: (i) The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act have not been considered while awarding the sentence; (ii) The notice of enhancement issued in each of the criminal references based upon the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge was for passing of the appropriate sentence and there was no indication that the accused persons had been called upon to show cause against imposition of substantive sentence of imprisonment. The final order of this Court was, therefore, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 439(2) and (6) of the Code.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.