Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.1.1994 passed by Special fudge, Sikar in Case No. 3/1989, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him to undergo six months' R.I. with fine of 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that as per the case of prosecution on 17.3.1989, Surendra Singh, Enforcement Inspector went for inspection along with Tehsildar Shri Ramdev Singh, at the shop of the dealer Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal received wheat for distribution to the ration card holders of that area. The allegation of the prosecution is that he did not distribute the same to the persons holding ration cards and in spite of this he had made entry in the register showing that wheat had been distributed to the persons. The statement of the persons were recorded and their ration cards were also seized. On that basis, F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Thoi for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act against the accused-appellant. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against him before the Court below. The substance of accusation was stated to the accused person, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses. Thereafter statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, vide its judgment dated 20.1.1994, as indicated here-in-above. Against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
(3.) At the very outset, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that looking to the nature of allegation and the matter pertains to the year 1989, which is 26 years ago from today approximately, the accused appellant is an old person having the children of marriageable age, it is the first offence of his life, he should be released on probation while dealing with the provisions under Section 360 Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harivallabha and another v. State of M.P. reported in (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 330 . Relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under: 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants are first offenders and in the facts and circumstances of the case they should have been dealt with under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code ) and the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to three months without recording any reasons, as required under Section 361 of the Code, which lays down that for special reasons to be recorded, a Court can refuse to release a person on probation of good conduct under Section 360 of the Code. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellants should have been dealt with under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and while upholding the conviction and sentence of fine awarded to the appellants, sentence of imprisonment awarded against them is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to deal with them under the provisions of Section 360 of the Code. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. ;