State Vs. Mool Chand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/769846
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided OnNov-07-1985
Case NumberD.B. Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1975
JudgeMilap Chand Jain and; Jas Raj Chopra, JJ.
Reported in1985WLN(UC)560
AppellantState
RespondentMool Chand
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
essential commodities act, 1955 - sections 3 & 7 and rajasthan exhibition of essential commodities price and stock order, 1966--sentence--enhancement of-offence of not exhibiting of price of goods & stock committed 12 years back--held, it would not be proper to enhance sentence;appeal dismissed. - 1. heard learned public prosecutor. this is an appeal for the state for enhancement of the sentencement of the respondent moolchand, who has been convicted under section 3/7 of the essential commodities act and was sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 50/- and in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment by the chief judicial magistrate, jalore vide his judgment dated 22-5-1974. he was found guilty of contravention of the rajasthan exhibition of essential commodities price and stock order, 1966.2. the offence dates back to 29-12-1973. about 12 years has expired, stock of some goods and their price were not exhibited on the board. after lapse of twelve years it would not be just and proper to enhance the sentence awarded to the respondent mool chand.3. the appeal for enhancement of the sentence fails, and, therefore, it is dismissed.
Judgment:

1. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. This is an appeal for the State for enhancement of the sentencement of the respondent Moolchand, who has been convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore vide his judgment dated 22-5-1974. He was found guilty of contravention of the Rajasthan Exhibition of Essential Commodities Price and Stock Order, 1966.

2. The offence dates back to 29-12-1973. About 12 years has expired, stock of some goods and their price were not exhibited on the board. After lapse of twelve years it would not be just and proper to enhance the sentence awarded to the respondent Mool Chand.

3. The appeal for enhancement of the sentence fails, and, therefore, it is dismissed.