Kanhaiya v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
Conviction for breach of essential commodities order confirmed. Sentence modified to credit period undergone in judicial custody as there were special reasons including old age and long pendency.
What did the court decide?
Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to credit only for period in custody; order to deposit remaining fine.
What the court decided
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1014 of 1987
Appellant :- Kanhaiya Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- V.S. Singh,Saket Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 31.03.1987 passed by learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, in Special Case No. 20 of 1986, arising out of Crime No. 69 of 1985, convicting and sentencing the appellant for breach of clause 6 and 23 of U.P. Foodgrains & other Essential Articles Distribution order 1977 punishable under Section 3 Sub Section (2) Clause (1) read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rupees 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
As per prosecution case on 21.05.1985 at 6:20 pm. Sri S.N. Verma, District Supply Officer, Banda, along with Sri Yusuf Hasan, Supply Inspector, Banda, has made an inspection of the shop of accused/appellant Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, who was quota holder of the levy sugar etc. During inspection, it was found that Sale Register was not kept up-to-date and fictitious entries had been made therein, which were verified from the local residents of the village and differences were also found in the ration cards and the Sale Register. In fact, no distribution of sugar was made to several village persons and excessive entries were made into the Sale Register. Entries in the ration cards were also found missing. The Sale Register was taken into custody and as a result of the aforesaid irregularities and illegalities, an FIR against the accused/appellant was lodged by
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction recorded by the trial Court required interference.
Whether the sentence imposed should be reduced considering age, lack of antecedents, and long pendency.
Whether the period already undergone in custody can be set off against the sentence.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kanhaiya Lal Gupta
- respondent
State
Coram
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLA/1014/1987
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court