The court upheld the conviction for a violation of the Essential Commodities Act but granted the benefit of probation, citing the appellants' status as first-time offenders and the significant delay in the legal proceedings as mitigating factors.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral):

Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, these appeals are being disposed of, vide a common order and judgment. However, the facts are being derived from CRA-S-449-SB-2004.

2. A complaint filed by the State of Punjab through Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala alleging the commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12AA of ‘Essential Commodities Act 1955’, read with clause 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c)(v) of ‘Fertilizer Control Order 1985’, culminated into judgment of conviction of four accused namely ‘Achil Kumar Anand’, ‘Rajiv Kumar Anand’, ‘M/s Shiv Shakti Chemicals’ and ‘Suresh Kumar’, by virtue of judgment of conviction dated 19.02.2004. By virtue of order on the quantum of sentence of even date following sentence was awarded to them:

3. Aggrieved of the above mentioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence two appeals have been preferred. The appeal No.1, i.e. CRA-S-475-SB-2004 has been jointly filed by the convicts, i.e. ‘Achil Kumar’ and ‘Rajiv Kumar,’ and subsequent appeal has been jointly filed by firm ‘M/s Shakti Chemicals’ and ‘Suresh Kumar’, all of them hereinafter being referred to as ‘appellants’ only.

4. It shall not be out of place to mention here that the above mentioned complaint was filed against five accused. In the complaint ‘M/s Madan Rice Mill’, Kapurthala through proprietor ‘Achil Kumar’, as accused No.1, however, no judgment of conviction or order of sentence has been passed against the above named firm.

5. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned complaint was filed with the allegations that ‘M/s Madan Rice Mill’ Kapurthala (Accused No.1 in the complaint) was an authorized dealer of the manufacturing firm ‘M/s Shakti Chemicals Limited’ (accused No.4 in the complaint and appellant No.5 herein) for the sale of zinc sulphate 21 & ‘Shakti Brand’ as per principal certificate issued by the manufacturing firm. According to complaint on 07.09.1995 Fertilizer Inspector, namely ‘Balwinder Singh along with Development Officer, namely ‘Kuldeep Singh’, inspected the premises of accused No.1 in the presence of ‘Rajiv Kumar Anand’ (accused No.3 in the complaint and appellant No.2 herein). As per complaint after disclosing his identity Fertilizer Inspector served a notice showing his intention to collect samples of fertilizer for the purpose of its analysis under the Fertilizer Control Order 1985, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Order’ only.

6. It was further alleged in the complaint that the appellant No.2 had received the above mentioned notice and as a token of receipt signed the same and affix the seal impression of the firm thereupon. The complainant further alleged that after the above mentioned proceedings the register of the accused No.1-firm was checked and at page No.31 of the stock register 198 bags of zinc Sulphate 21% ‘Shakti Brand’ fertilizer was recorded. The record further reveals that the above mentioned stock of fertilizer was received on 01.04.1995 vide bill No.104 dated 10.03.1995 issued by the appellant No.3.

7. Acco