Bihari Lal & Anr. v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Essential Commodities Act s. 7
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 406, 409
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioners. ---- Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 406 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court in a case arising out of FIR No.45 dated 17.6.1998 under Section 409 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Phul.
On appeal, the appellate Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners only under Section 406 IPC and acquitted them of the charges under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The aforesaid order/judgments of the Courts below are under challenge in the instant revision petition. Crl. Rev. No.3037 of 2011 2
At the outset, it may be noticed that as per the allegations, the firm of the petitioners was entrusted with paddy for the purpose of milling during the year 1997-98 . Thereafter, it was required to deposit the rice after milling paddy with the FCI. However, the petitioners did not deliver the requisite amount of paddy and thus, the FIR in question was registered.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned judgments.
It is not in dispute that for the purpose of milling, paddy was stored in the premises of the accused-petitioners and as per the agreement, the petitioners were responsible for its safe custody till the delivery of rice, as per the ratio fixed by the Government. Admittedly, it was also the responsibility of the petitioners to make good the losses that might be incurred in paddy and rice during transit/storage at the rate fixed by the respondent. It is again not in dispute that the requisite amount of rice was not deposited with the Government after milling and a shortage was found in the return of the paddy. It is further not in dispute that the paddy was entrusted to the accused for milling and thus, from the aforesaid narrated facts, the necessary ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 IPC are met out. Even the civil proceedings for recovery of cost of misappropriated goods was decreed against the petitioners and despite opportunity granted, they have refused to pay the amount.
It is well settled that pendency of civil proceedings on Crl. Rev. No.3037 of 2011 3 the basis of agreement and arbitration award is no bar to the criminal proceedings against the accused.
Thus, there is no error of law in the impugned judgments.
Dismissed. April 19, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Essential Commodities Act — s. 7; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 406, 409.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 19 Apr 2012. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.