IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of discretion in sentencing, allowing probation for first-time offenders under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public prosecutor, Assam for the sole respondent.

2. The present criminal revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup in connection with Case No. 4555/2008 convicting the petitioner and sentencing her to undergo Imprisonment for 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 2 (two) months. Further, the challenge is against the judgment and order dated 05.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2011 upholding the impugned judgment and order dated 03.12.2010, as noted above.

3. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 09.04.2007, a team of officers of Food and Civil Supplies, Kamrup and a team of Officers of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. made a raid at the hotels/restaurants of Bhangagarh area and at about 03:00 pm, they entered into the premises of Lazeez Fast Food, a hotel situated at Bhangagarh near G.S. Road and having checked the kitchen room of the aforesaid hotel, they found one domestic LPG cylinder with a gase stove being used in commercial purpose. During such raid, the aforesaid teams found the petitioner as Manager of said hotel and asked her to produce relevant permission for using domestic LPG cylinder in hotel but she failed to produce any such permission. Thereafter, the Inspector Ganesh Boro had seized the cylinder preparing seizure list and recorded her statement and left the cylinder in the zimma of one Sanjib Kalita, who was a staff of M/s Padmaja Gas Agency, Bilpar. Said Inspector had laid Offence Report on 21.07.2008 against the accused/petitioner to stand trial in the Court under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (E.C. Act, in short) for contravention of Clause 3(1)(c) and Clause 7(1)(b)(c) of the LPG Cylinder (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. On receipt of summon, the accused/petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court and subsequently, the charge framed under Section 7(1)(a)(II) of the E.C. Act was explained to her, which she pleaded not guilty and accordingly, the trial was proceeded. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, by the judgment and order dated 03.12.2010 convicted the accused/petitioner and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 2 (two) months and the same was also affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup vide judgment and order dated 05.05.2011, as noted herein above.

4. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed.

5. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he shall not challenge the impugned order of conviction on merit and shall confine his submission for grant benefit of probation to the accused/petitioner.

6. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argues that the accused/ petitioner is entitled for the benefit under Sections 360/361 Cr.P.C. and under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1958) which had not been granted by both the learned Courts below. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner further submits that the accused/petitioner had not been convicted previously for any offence and she is first time offender.

7. According to Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner though the learned Trial Court ought to have considered for granting the benefit under the Act, 1958, however, the same was rejected only on the consideration that the accused/petitioner had committed the instant crime knowingly and