The court held that granting probation to a first-time offender is a valid exercise of judicial discretion based on a reformative approach, provided the statutory criteria for probation are met and the discretion is not arbitrary.

Judgment

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of sentence against the judgment and order dated 12.12.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 9/1994, whereby the accused–respondent, namely Nanuram son of Parmeshwari Lal was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but was extended the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of being awarded substantive sentence.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are that during inspection of the shop of the accused–respondent, a substantial quantity of diesel and kerosene oil was found stored, for which the accused failed to produce any valid licence or authorization. Upon inquiry, the same was found to be in contravention of the relevant Control Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act. Consequently, proceedings were initiated against the accused, and after completion of trial, the learned trial court recorded conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act; however, instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment, the accused was released on probation.

3. Having regard to the fact that the present appeal is of considerable antiquity and further noticing that the learned counsel representing the respondent is not available, this Court deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to appoint Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the respondent–accused under the Free Legal Aid Scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. The remuneration payable to the learned Amicus Curiae shall be borne by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority in accordance with the applicable Rules.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has assailed the impugned order of sentence contending that the learned trial court has committed a serious error in extending the benefit of probation to the accused despite recording conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is submitted that the offence in question is an economic offence affecting the public at large and carries a minimum prescribed sentence, and therefore, the grant of probation is wholly unjustified. It is further urged that the sentence awarded is grossly inadequate and does not meet the ends of justice, and thus, the same deserves to be enhanced.

5. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent–accused has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned trial court has exercised its discretion judiciously in extending the benefit of probation. It is contended that the accused is a first-time offender, has faced the agony of trial for a considerable period, and no previous criminal antecedents have been brought on record. It is further submitted that the reformative approach adopted by the learned trial court does not warrant interference, particularly in an old matter, and that the appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent–