Budhdeo Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of

the Jharkhand High Court dated 8.8.2003 passed in Criminal

Appeal No.24 of 1996 (R) by which the High Court has allowed the

said appeal partly, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the

co-accused and upholding the conviction and sentence of the

present appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and

sentence dated 25.3.1996 and 26.3.1996 respectively passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in

connection with Kamdara P.S. Case No.31/1992 (G.R. No.11/1992).

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that

the appellant was dealing in public distribution shop. Since the 2 appellant became the Government servant, the license for the said

shop was cancelled in March, 1992. On 10.5.1992, a raid was

conducted at the appellant's house and during the search a drum

containing 180 liters of kerosene oil was found and, therefore, an

FIR was, accordingly, registered against the appellant and his father

on the same day under the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 as there was a violation of the provisions of

the Bihar Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1965 which provided

that a person other than a licensee, was permitted to store kerosene

oil maximum up to 37 liters. The appellant and his co-accused

denied the charges. However, the trial court vide judgment and

order dated 25.3.1996 and 26.3.1996 convicted the appellant and

his father for violation of the aforesaid provisions and sentenced

each of them to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.500/-

and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo R.I. for one

month.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant and his father filed the criminal

appeal No.24/1996 (R) before the Patna High Court. The High

Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi disposed of the said appeal vide

judgment and order dated 8.8.2003 by which it acquitted the co- 3 accused Balchand Sahu - father of the appellant, but maintained

the conviction and sentence so far as the present appellant was

concerned. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the State. There are concurrent findings of fact so far as

the appellant is concerned. During the raid conducted by the

Department on 10.5.1992 at 1.30 P.M. 180 liters kerosene oil was

found in the house of the appellant. It was specifically stated by

PW.5 Sharvan Sai, BDO, that kerosene oil was measured and it was

found to be 180 liters. In the cross-examination nothing could be

elicited from him that the statement so made by him was not

correct. He has denied the suggestion that no oil was recovered

from the appellant Budhdeo Sahu and he was deposing falsely.

5. Recovery of kerosene oil and quantity thereof cannot be

doubted. Thus, there is no cogent reason to interfere with the said

findings of fact. No material has been placed before us to show that

the findings of fact so recorded are perverse or unreasonable being

based on no evidence. No other point worth consideration and

acceptance was raised. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

incident had occurred in 1992. A period of 17 years has elapsed.

The appellant has served about 5 months and 6 days in jail out of

the six months sentence awarded to him and he has deposited the

fine also. Therefore, it has been suggested by him that the sentence

of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Considering the fact that the Act provides minimum punishment of

three months and the appellant has already served for more than 5

months out of the six months sentence awarded to him and has

deposited the fine and a period of 17 years has elapsed, in the facts

and circumstances of this case, the sentence of the appellant is

reduced to the period already undergone by him. Since the

appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.

7. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.

.........................................J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

.........................................J. (Dr. B.S. Chauhan) New Delhi;

28th May, 2009.

5 6

Digital Proforma

1. Case No. : Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2004

2. Date of decision : 28.5.2009

3. Cause Title : Budhdeo Sahu vs. The State of Jharkhand

4. Coram : Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan

5. Date of C.A.V. : 25.5.2009

6. Judgment delivered : Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan by

7. Nature of Judgment : Non-Reportable whether reportable