The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal. The appellant, convicted for not paying levy on exported wheat, challenged his conviction and probation bond. The court affirmed the conviction and held the appeal lacking merit, directing the appellant to furnish the bond if not already done.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; direction to furnish probation bond if not already done.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AFR
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1185 of 1986
Appellant :- Naresh Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- V.P. Goel Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Maurya, learned counsels for the appellant and Sri B.D. Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By way of instant Criminal Appeal challenge has been made to the appellant- Naresh- has been convicted by the judgement and order of conviction dated 11.4.1986 passed by Special Judge, Deoria in Criminal Case No.76 of 1985, State Vs. Naresh, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 7 Essential Commodities Act and instead of being sentenced has been released on probation and he has been directed to maintain piece and good behaviour for one year and was required to furnish personal bond along with two sureties each for Rs.2000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the wheat in question was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. He adds that the appellant is the owner of the wheat in question, as it was the produce of his own field. There was no point to pay any levy, as appellant has neither crossed the border of state of U.P. and Bihar nor any such transportation was made, nor such fact has been specifically proved that while transporting the wheat, the appellant crossed the border of U.P. to aforesaid State of Bihar, as such no offence is made out against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant claims that the testimony on record overwhelmingly proves
innocence of the appellant.
Learned AGA vehemently replied to the argument and submitted that the appellant has admitted fact of ownership of the wheat in question and transportation. He also claims himself to be the owner of the food- grains. It was for the appellant to have proved fact of paying the levy accrued while crossing the inter- state border, but he could no show any document in this regard.
I have also considered the rival submissions and also took note of claim of the appellant and in the light of above; the moot point that arises for adjudication of this appeal is confined to the fact whether the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
The factual aspect of this case as discernible from record that on 28.01.1984 at about 5 A.M., the appellant was arrested at Chhathiyaon Ghat (inter-state border of State of Bihar and U.P., as claimed) while exporting wheat in question to Bihar State without paying levy on it. The charge was that the accused did not pay levy on the wheat in question, therefore, they were detained and charged for committing the offence in contravention to Clause 3 of the U.P. Food Grains Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1976 and Clause 3 of the U.P. Wheat (Levy) Order, 1982. The complaint was filed and the prosecuting authority recorded the testimony and established the aforesaid claim against the appellant.
The appellant also produced defence witnesses in their support. However, their testimony was wanting on the point of innocence of the appellant, in view of specific and categorical admission made by the appellant himself before the
trial court that he is the owner of the foodgrain in question and he was transporting the same from one place to another place. This shows that he was transporting food-grain from State of U.P. to State of Bihar.
This particular fact is unequivocally established in this case against the accused and basing his conviction on the aforesaid particular aspect of admission of the accused, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and instead of awarding sentence gave him advantage of relevant provisions of the Probation of the Offenders Act and asked him to furnish bond for Rs.2000/- each with two sureties in the like amount for one year period from the date of delivery of judgement i.e. 11th April, 1986.
The finding of conviction thus is found to be based on material on record and the same cannot be faulted with, therefore, no interference is required, as almost every particular fact of the case is admitted to the appellant himself. However, the trial court has shown leniency to the appellant while convicting him by releasing him on probation, which leniency has not been violated and there is nothing on record, which may indicate anything in line to the ambit that after the delivery of judgement in April, 1986 upto further period of one year when the probation period ended the appellant committed any violation or acted in breach of the terms and conditions of the probation bond, i.e., maintaining peace and keeping good behaviour for one year.
However, it is directed that, in case, the appellant has not furnished any personal bond with two sureties in the amount for Rs.2000/- as
directed by the trial court then he will appear before the District Probation Officer concerned and will furnish the bond which will be deemed to be a bond furnished in compliance of the order of the trial court for one year period commencing from the date of delivery of judgement by the trial court.
In view of above scrutiny and after considering the merit of the case it is obvious that the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.4.1986 passed by the trial court in Criminal Case No.76 of 1985, State vs. Naresh, is hereby affirmed. Consequently,the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed .
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below for intimation and necessary action.
Order Date :- 16.2.2018 Raj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act should be set aside or the probation bond was not properly furnished?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Naresh
State
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
