High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. Challenge in this appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the judgment and the order passed by the Special Judge, Fatehpur on 06.09.1983 in Special Trial No. 2 of 1983, State Vs. Vijay Pal and others, whereby the appellant Vijay Pal Singh son of Sheo Ratan has been convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 13 of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 and under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

3. The prosecution theory, in nutshell, is that on 12.11.1982 at 08:00 P.M., the S.O. Kaptan Singh of Police Station- Jahanabad, District- Fatehpur along with police force after returning from village Musaf after making certain investigation in a case reached near village-Gosai Khera, where in the flour-mill of the appellant Vijay Pal, the huller was in operation, wherein it was found that they were recovering rice from paddy through huller, which was in contravention of the provisions of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, U.P. Food-grains Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1976, U.P. Rice and Paddy Order, 1977 and under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

4. Allegation is that the raiding officer found that the huller was in operation in the rice-mill of appellant and was being operated by the appellant Vijay Pal along with co-accused Malikhe Lal (since deceased). A truck was also standing there for loading of the rice from the huller. On being asked to show any license for running the huller, appellant could not furnish any document, hence he was arrested and a sample of paddy and rice was taken along with huller and a Recovery Memo (Exhibit Ka-1) was prepared and it was sent to the police station.

5. Post-obtaining of the necessary sanction from the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, the appellant herein was charge sheeted.

6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: S.O. Kaptan Singh (PW-1), S.I. P.D. Srivastava (PW-2) and S.I. Onkar Nath Yadav (PW-3).

7. The appellant examined the following defence witnesses: Baij Nath (DW-1) and Sayadeen (DW-2).

8. The appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter on 06.09.1983, the Court of Special Judge, Fatehpur in Special Trial No.2 of 1983 proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant herein for rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 13 of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 and under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had at no point of time committed any offence under the said penal provisions. Submission is that there was no recovery made and whatever recovery is being sought to be shown, it is without there being any independent witness and is fabricated.

10. Contention is that no huller was in operation in the premises of the appellant on 12.11.1982 and there was no raid conducted therein, however, on papers the recovery memo has been prepared and the appellant has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the alleged offences is stated to have been committed in the year 1982, i.e. on 12.11.1982 and now more than 42 years have passed and further the appellant does not possess any criminal history, thus the present conviction and sentence be converted to fine.

11. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that though from the documents available on record as well as the statement of the witnesses, it is apparent that during the raid so conducted in the premises of the appellant on 12.11.1982 without there being any valid licence huller was in operation and a truck was also standing in the flour mill of the appellant for threshing the paddy into rice, but according to him, looking into the nature of the allegations, as well as the fact that from 1982 more than 42 years have passed, the conviction and sentence be altered and modified to fine.

12. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

13. The case of the prosecution as depicted from the record is that the prosecution conducted a raid in the premises of the appellant herein wherein without there being any valid licence, huller was in operation for threshing the paddy into rice and a truck was also standing there to be filled with the paddy for being transported to the destination. On being asked to furnish the licence, the same was not furnished. Thus it cannot be said that the appellant is innocent. However, bearing in mind the fact that the incident is stated to be of 08.11.1982 and more than 42 years have passed and also the fact that appellant does not possess any criminal history and looking into the over all fact situation, this Court in exercise of the appellate power finds that the conviction and sentence for rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under section 13 of the Rice- Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is liable to be substituted to fine.

13. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part.

14. Conviction of the appellant under Section 13 of the Rice- Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 and under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is upheld, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 6 months is only modified and altered to fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/- only.

15. The fine amount imposed upon accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order.

16. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to Sessions Judge, Fatehpur for compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court. Copy of this judgment/order be also provided to learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. Challenge in this appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the judgment and the order passed by the Special Judge, Fatehpur on 06.09.1983 in Special Trial No. 2 of 1983, State Vs. Vijay Pal and others, whereby the appellant Vijay Pal Singh son of Sheo Ratan has been convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 13 of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 and under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

3. The prosecution theory, in nutshell, is that on 12.11.1982 at 08:00 P.M., the S.O. Kaptan Singh of Police Station- Jahanabad, District- Fatehpur along with police force after returning from village Musaf after making certain investigation in a case reached near village-Gosai Khera, where in the flour-mill of the appellant Vijay Pal, the huller was in operation, wherein it was found that they were recovering rice from paddy through huller, which was in contravention of the provisions of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, U.P. Food-grains Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1976, U.P. Rice and Paddy Order, 1977 and under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

4. Allegation is that the raiding officer found that the huller was in operation in the rice-mill of appellant and was being operated by the appellant Vijay Pal along with co-accused Malikhe Lal (since deceased). A truck was also standing there for loading of the rice from the huller. On being asked to show any license for running the huller, appellant could not furnish any document, hence he was arrested and a sample of paddy and rice was taken along with huller and a Recovery Memo (Exhibit Ka-1) was prepared and it was sent to the police station.

5. Post-obtaining of the necessary sanction from the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, the appellant herein was charge sheeted.

6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: S.O. Kaptan Singh (PW-1), S.I. P.D. Srivastava (PW-2) and S.I. Onkar Nath Yadav (PW-3).

7. The appellant examined the following defence witnesses: Baij Nath (DW-1) and Sayadeen (DW-2).

8. The appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter on 06.09.1983, the Court of Special Judge, Fatehpur in Special Trial No.2 of 1983 proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant herein for rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 13 of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 and under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had at no point of time committed any offence under the said penal provisions. Submission is that there was no recovery made and whatever recovery is being sought to be shown, it is without there being any independent witness and is fabricated.

10. Contention is that no huller was in operation in the premises of the appellant on 12.11.1982 and there was no raid conducted therein, however, on papers the recovery memo has been prepared and the appellant has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the alleged offences is stated to have been committed in the year 1982, i.e. on 12.11.1982 and now more than 42 years have passed and further the appellant does not possess any criminal history, thus the present conviction and sentence be converted to fine.

11. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that though from the documents available on record as well as the statement of the witnesses, it is apparent that during the raid so conducted in the premises of the appellant on 12.11.1982 without there being any valid licence huller was in operation and a truck was also standing in the flour mill of the appellant for threshing the paddy into rice, but according to him, looking into the nature of the allegations, as well as the fact that from 1982 more than 42 years have passed, the conviction and sentence be altered and modified to fine.

12. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

13. The case of the prosecution as depicted from the record is that the prosecution conducted a raid in the premises of the appellant herein wherein without there being any valid licence, huller was in operation for threshing the paddy into rice and a truck was also standing there to be filled with the paddy for being transported to the destination. On being asked to furnish the licence, the same was not furnished. Thus it cannot be said that the appellant is innocent. However, bearing in mind the fact that the incident is stated to be of 08.11.1982 and more than 42 years have passed and also the fact that appellant does not possess any criminal history and looking into the over all fact situation, this Court in exercise of the appellate power finds that the conviction and sentence for rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under section 13 of the Rice- Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is liable to be substituted to fine.

13. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part.

14. Conviction of the appellant under Section 13 of the Rice- Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 and under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is upheld, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 6 months is only modified and altered to fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/- only.

15. The fine amount imposed upon accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from today. In case of default in payment of fine amount within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall serve out the entire sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order.

16. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to Sessions Judge, Fatehpur for compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court. Copy of this judgment/order be also provided to learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad