Dhan Pal And Another vs State

1. Heard Sri Mayank Prakash Rawat, learned counsel for appellants and Shri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.6.1988 passed by Special Judge Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 20 of 1986 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act and sentenced him for six months rigorous imprisonment.

3. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.12.1984 passed by Special Judge E.C. Act, Mainpuri, in Special Trial No. 12 of 1983 by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 7 of E.C. Act read with clause III of U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order 1981 and further under clause III of U.P. Kerosene Order 1962 and sentenced them for one year rigorous imprisonment for each contravention.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.10.1982 at about 7:30 pm, the accused persons, one of whom was driving the tractor bearing no. U.P.T. 1839 and another one was sitting in the trolley attached to it, was carrying three drums of kerosene oil and three drums of diesel oil from Shikohabad to Eka for black marketing. On information of the same, S.I. S.R. Sehara P.W.1 alongwith other police personnel intercepted the tractor and seized the kerosene oil and diesel oil as the accused persons were unable to furnish any valid explanation for the possession or sale of the such oil. The learned trial court after considering the evidence on record and examining the witnesses committed the accused under Section 7 Essential Commodities Act and read with clause 3 of U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order 1981 and further under clause 3 of U.P. Kerosene Order 1962.

5. Learned AGA submitted that findings of the trial court convicting appellant-accused persons is based upon impeccable evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence, impugned judgment does not warrant any interference, but conceded that sentencing the appellant to the period already undergone would serve the ends of justice, given that the occurrence took place in the year 1982.

6. Considering the totality of circumstances, including the age of the appellants who are now at an advanced age, the remote date of occurrence in 1982, prolonged pendency of trial and appeal.

7. This Court after considering the arguments of both the parties finds no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the trial court. However, it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the punishment awarded to the accused persons is only 1 year of imprisonment and further that the occurrence is of the year 1982 and more than four decades have passed since then.

8. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 7 of the E.C. Act read with clause III of U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order 1981 and further under clause 3 of U.P. Kerosene Order 1962 is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence awarded by the trial court of one year imprisonment is modified to the extent that the appellants shall deposit a fine of Rs. 5,000/- before the trial court within 15 days from today, failing which the court concerned shall issue a non-bailable warrant against the appellants. If the appellants appear or are brought before the concerned court, they shall be sent to jail for execution of the remaining sentence. Their bail bond stands cancelled.

9. The Trial Court's record be remitted back along with copy of this judgment.

10. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 7, 2026

Ujjawal