Honble GUPTA, J.–This revision is directed against the appellate judgment dt. 30.11.1998 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Kota whereby he upheld the conviction of petitioner under Sec. 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

(2). It is not necessary to state the facts of the case in detail as Mr. Singhi fre- quently concedes that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused and he does not challenge the conviction. His only submission is that the matter pertains to the year 1980 and thus about 18 years have elapsed and the petitioner who is about 65 years of age has already suffered a lot and, therefore, the period already undergone by him may be considered sufficient sentence. Mr. Singhi relies on the cases of Prabhu Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan (1), and Rajendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2).

(3). The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supports the order of the Appellate Court.

(4). The prosecution case is that on 1.8.1980 Mr. Jagdish Narayan, Enforce- ment Inspector had inspected establishment of the petitioner who was a kerosene dealer on physical checking it was found that there was shortage of kerosene when physically measured. So also on the list the stock of kerosene was not shown. After the challan was filed, charge was framed against the petitioner who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Surajmal, P.W. Gulabchand, P.W.3 Jagdish Pandey, P.W.4 Surendra Bhatnagar and P.W.5 Pusmal. Accused in his statement u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. denied accusation. He examined D.W.1 Phool Chand.

(5). A careful reading of the statement of PW 3 Jagdish Pandey shows that there was shortage of kerosene when physical checking of the stock was made by him. The Motbirs also depose that the Checking Memo bears their signatures. There is no cause to disbelieve the prosecution evidence. The trial court has therefore, rightly convicted the petitioner and the appellate Court has rightly affirmed the same.

(6). Coming to the sentence, it is noticed that more than 18 years have elapsed since the date of checking. The age of the petitioner is around 65 years. The petitioner is in jail since 30.11.98. When the offence was committed by the accused petitioner, under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the E.C.Act, the Court had powers to impose a sentence of imprisonment less than three months. For the reasons pointed out above, it is thought proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

(7). Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7 of the E.C.Act, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is maintained. If the fine has been deposited the petitioner shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document