Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 03.11.1998, passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act / Additional district and Sessions Judge, Hardoi, in Criminal Case No. 15 of 1991 (State vs. Ram Pherey), under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station Lonar, District Hardoi, whereby the accused was found guilty and sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the prosecution case in brief is that a compl;aint was lodged by the Supply Inspector stating that the accused Ram Pherey supplies sugar and kerosene oil to the card holders. Complaints were received from card holders Hari, Udai Raj, Rajendra Prasad, Raj Kishore, Madan Mohan, Ram Charan, Prabhu Dayal and others on which the Supply Inspector went to the spot on 11.08.1991. The shop keeper closed the shop and fled away. There was no information about the shop being closed. The stock board and the rate board were not displaying anythng. The brother of the accused was found at the spot. He was directed to ensure that the record relating to the shop coupled with the sale register and the stock register are submitted within three days to the office. The accused have not supplied the articles to the card holders, although, he levied the prescribed quota of articles but he did not distribute it amongst the card holders, hence the report was lodged.

3. On the basis of the report, investigation was conducted which ended into a charge sheet. Charges were framed against the accused under Section 3/7 E.C. Act on 31.03.1992. But the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined PW-1 Ashok Kumar Katiyar, supply Inspector, PW-2 Udai Raj Pandey, PW-3 Rajendra, and PW-4 S.I. Raja Ram Mishra who conducted the investigation.

5. After close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the allegations. He further submitted that the notice board was displayed about the closure of the shop. The rate board and stock board were in the shop. Further, he did not adduced any witness in his defence.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned lower court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in para 1 of the judgment.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.

8. Heard Sri M. L. Syal and Sri Rajat Pratap Singh learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party and perused the lower court record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Rajat Pratap Singh has stated that he does not want to argue this appeal on merits, but he only wants to submit on the quantum of sentence. Further he has vehemently argued that custodial sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment is harsh and excessive. The appellant has already undergone more than two months of imprisonment. Presently his age is above 50 years. The occurrence relates to the year 1993, about 23 years have passed. For the last 23 years, the appellant has been suffering the trauma of being convicted and sentenced. Lastly, it has been submitted that the accused appellant be sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

10. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer made by counsel for the appellant.

11. In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State of W. B. [1994] 2 SCC 220, this Court has observed that shockingly large number of criminals go unpunished thereby increasingly, encouraging the criminals and in the ultimate making justice suffer by weakening the system's creditability. The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but al