The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation over punishment under the Probation of Offenders Act, reflecting a reformative approach.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. An appeal having come to be filed U/S.374(2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant assailing his conviction for offence U/S.7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the E.C. Act) and sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months and to a pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof, to undergo further R.I. for 40 days as passed/recorded on 17.08.1994 by the learned Judge, Special Court, Phulbani in 2(c).C.C. Case No.1 of 1991.

2. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr. S. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant although seriously challenges the conviction of the appellant, but when this Court took him through the impugned judgment by analyzing the same and convinced him that the impugned judgment does not suffer from infirmity, he promptly submits that the appellant does not intend to challenge his conviction, but he craves for sympathetic consideration for his sentence and accordingly, learned counsel urges to modify the sentence of the convict- appellant by releasing him under the beneficial provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short “P.O. Act”) instead of sentencing him at once. Learned counsel for the State does not oppose such prayer of the appellant.

3. In view of the specific submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court clarifies it not to recapitulate the facts of the case in extenso, but limits itself to state the necessary facts for disposal of this appeal as, on 25.12.1990, the complainant-Marketing Inspector, Phulbani being assisted by other Government officials conducted raid in the house of convict-Tarun Kumar Parida and found him to have stocked 62 bags of rice weighing 42 Quintal 51 Kgs. & 300grams in his house without any authority and, accordingly, on completion of enquiry, the complainant filed a complaint against the appellant in the learned trial Court for violation of Clause- 3(2) of Orissa Rice(Movement) Control Order, 1964 amended in the year 1990, Clause-3(2) & 2(1) of the Orissa & Paddy Control Order, 1965 which are punishable U/S.7 of the E.C. Act and Section 9 of E.C. Act. After appreciating the evidence upon conclusion of trial and hearing the parties, the learned Judge, Special Court, Phulbani while finding the appellant not guilty of offence U/S.9 of E.C. Act, found him guilty of offence punishable U/S.7 of E.C. Act for violation of the above Control Orders for unauthorizedly procuring and storing the above quantity of rice and, accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to the punishment indicated above.

4. In the above backdrop of case, since the appellant does not challenge his conviction, but prays for modification of sentence, this Court now proceeds to examine the position of law in this regard. Law is fairly well settled in respect of sentencing a convict for an offence not punishable with imprisonment for life or death by way of extending the beneficial provision of P.O. Act. In this regard, this Court considers it profitable to refer to the following decisions.

5. In Harivallabha and another Vs. State of M.P. (2005) 10 SCC 330, upon noticing the conviction of the appellant for Sec.7 of the E.C. Act and High Court reducing the sentence of imprisonment to three months, the Apex Court in Paragraph 3 has held that:-

“A Court can refuse to release a person on probation of good conduct U/S.360 of the Cr.P.C. but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants should have been dealt with under the provisions of Sec.360 of the Cr.P.C.”

5.1 In Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 6