ORDER :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment dated 07.09.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act Cases), Balotra, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the conviction and the sentence imposed by him against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sec. 3/7 of E.C. Act and Sec. 467 I.P.C. may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused-appellant may kindly be acquitted of alleged offences.”

3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1990 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1994.

4. Vide impugned judgment dated 07.09.1994 the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Balotra in Criminal Case No.3/93 convicted appellant for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act & Section 467 IPC and sentenced as under:- (Sentences will run concurrently) 3/7 E.C Act : 06 months R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 month S.I. 467 IPC : 01 year R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months S.I.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the offence under Section 3/7 E.C Act is punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to seven years & under 467 IPC is punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to ten years, therefore, the appellant may be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-appellant may be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

“4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.

(3)…

(4)…

(5)... ”

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the present appeal and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned court below, the accused -appellant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

10. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“The Probation of Offenders Act is a ref