The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the proviso to Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in determining the appropriate sentencing for offenses under the Act.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused respondent may kindly be sentenced appropriately and adequately by enhancing the sentence of the accused respondent."

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before the Court by learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-appellant are that on 16.08.1994 the Enforcement Officer, Shri Ram Chandra, searched the house of the respondent in the presence of his father, and upon checking the tanker present in the house found 1000 litres diesel present in it, and that the respondent did not have a bill / receipt for the same. The Enforcement Officer took three samples of the diesel so found, and after finding that the respondent was in illegal possesion of the said diesel, a report was submitted at the Police Station, Hinduman Kot, and a case was registered against the respondent under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities act, 1955. Subsequently, the chargesheet was filed and charges were framed against the respondent. Upon trial, the learned Court below convicted respondent for the offence under the aforementioned section but looking to the fact that it was the first offence of the respondent and that the case had remained pending for 3 years, when the impugned order was passed; deemed it fit to award the accused-respondent with imprisonment upto rising of the Court day, on that particular day, and with a fine of Rs. 500/-in default of which he was to further undergo 7 days S.I., vide the impugned judgment 02.12.1997.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the learned Court below has erred in passing the impugned order, as it failed to take into consideration the settled law, that provision of law laid down in the proviso to Section 7(1) (a) sub-clause II which states conferred powers upon the competent Court to reduce the sentence that may be awarded to an accused therein, to under 3 months, which was deleted with effect from the year 1982.

Relevant portion of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities act, 1955 reads as follows:-

"7. Penalties

(1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3:

(a) he shall be punishable:

(i) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and

(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."

4. Learned Public Prosector submits that the sentence of the respondent ought to be enchanced appropriately and adequately, as the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the accused-respondent accepted the charges levelled against him and the offence commited by him under the Essential Commodities act, 1955 is an offence which affects the society as a whole.

4. None present for the respondent.

5. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case.

6. This Court observes, that the submission so put forth by the learned Public Prosecutor, that powers so bestowed upon the competent Court, as under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities act, 1955 was apparently omitted by act 18 of 1981, Section 7, for fifteen years w.e.f. 01.09.1982. This moratorium period of 15 years would therefore expire on 01.09.1997.

7. This Court is conscious of the fact that while the date of incident was 16.08.1994,the date on which the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order, was on 02.12.1997 and after the moratorium period had expired, and therefore the proviso, as afore