ORDER

This Criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgement dated 29.09.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Ujjain in Special Case No.09/1994 whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 for violation clause 3(1) of Madhya Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991 sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months, in addition to a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a term of one and a half months. 2. Brief fact of the case is that during inspection dated 28.12.1992 by Assistant Food Officer, Jaora the truck no.CII-177 was carrying 119 quintal 30 kg. maize in 120 bags without license from the godown of appellant/accused Shantilal who was transporting the produce to Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan. On completing the proceedings the appellant/accused put to trial before the Special Judge, Ujjain.

3. The Special Judge, Ujjain convicted the appellant/accused on relying the testimony of S.I. Daulat Singh Ranawat (P.W.-5), driver of the vehicle Mohd. Jahid Khan (P.W.2), Constable Sureshchandra Soni (P.W.-4), District Food Officer P.L. Sharma (P.W.-7), Head Constable Ganpat Singh (P.W.-8), S.I., Prempal Singh Choudhary (P.W.-9) and documents (Exhibit P/2 to P/16).

4. Challenging the conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred on the ground that learned trial court has committed error in believing the prosecution witnesses and discarding the defence witnesses.

5. The learned Panel Advocate for the respondent/State has supported the conviction and sentence.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On appreciation of testimony of S.I. Daulat Singh Ranawat (P.W.-5), driver of the vehicle Mohd. Jahid Khan (P.W.2), Constable Sureshchandra Soni (P.W.-4), District Food Officer P.L. Sharma (P.W.-7), Head Constable Ganpat Singh (P.W.-8), S.I., Prempal Singh Choudhary (P.W.-9) and documents (Exhibit P/2 to P/16), the conviction and sentence under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 for violation clause 3(1) of Madhya Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1991 is affirmed.

8. Considering the fact that incident is of 1992 and the trial court has considered the fact that the appellant is first offender but mentioning minimum sentence for offence under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has awarded sentence of imprisonment.

9. Section 7 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is reproduced below:-

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;

(b) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government;

(c) any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying t he commodity shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to the Government."

10. The matter comes within section 7(1)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Apex Court in case of Taraknath Kesari Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2023 Latest Caselaw 462 SC has considered the legal position regarding invocation of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in matters where minimum sentence is prescribed in p