IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Court may, for adequate and special reasons, impose punishment less than minimum prescribed in the Section.
(2) Even if minimum sentence is provided in Essential Commodities Act, 1955 same will not be a hurdle for invoking applicability of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta passed in CRA No. 327 of 1986 dated 4.7.2017. Vide aforesaid judgment, the judgment of the Trial Court dated 29.7.1986 was upheld.

2. The appellant was tried and convicted under Section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the EC Act”) for violation of para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978. It was on account of the fact that at the time of inspection of his grocery shop on 20.8.1985, mustard oil and vegetable oil were found to be more than the permissible limit.

3. The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-. The sale proceeds of the seized oil were forfeited to the State. In appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction, however, reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment of six months to rigorous imprisonment of three months. However, the fine was upheld. Notice in the appeal was issued on 7.9.2018 restricted to the question of imposition of fine in lieu of or in addition to sentence.

4. The short argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is a case where the incident had taken place way back in the year 1985 when the inspection of the grocery shop of the appellant was carried out. More than 37 years have gone by. Though the trial was concluded in less than a year, however, thereafter the matter remained pending in the High Court for a period of more than 31 years. The appellant was on bail throughout. Considering the aforesaid fact, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him may be set aside and in case this Court finds appropriate, in lieu of sentence, fine may be imposed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that no doubt the incident had taken place more than 37 years back, however, still two courts have found that the offence against the appellant was made out. Under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act, minimum punishment of three months has been provided. However, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the State, did not dispute the fact that the proviso of the aforesaid provision clearly stipulates that the sentence less than the minimum prescribed can be awarded for ‘special’ and ‘adequate’ reasons to be recorded.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The fact that inspection of the shop of the appellant was carried out on 20.8.1985, hence the incident had taken place more than 37 years back. As was pointed out at the time of hearing, the appellant throughout remained on bail. Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act under which the appellant has been convicted, provides as under: -

“7. Penalties – (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3, -

(a) he shall be punishable, -

(i) ….

(ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months;”

7. A perusal of the aforesaid Section shows that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons, impose punishment less than the minimum prescribed in the Section. However, the fact remains that the offence in the case in hand was committed on 20.8.1985 and in terms of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Amendment Act, 1981, the proviso was not in force on that date.

8. As far as the case of the appellant on merits is concerned, we do not find that any case is made out for interference in the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by all the courts below. It was found that the stock of mustard oil and vegetable oil found at the shop of the appellant was more than the permiss