A man will have to spend three months in jail for violating provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 19 years ago, in 1995, and storing 22 quintals of sugar, which was not allowed then.
Justice AIS Cheema of the Aurangabad bench of Bombay high court upheld conviction of Ashok Ahuja, 56, and also fined him Rs1,000. If he fails to pay the fine, he will have to spend 20 more days behind bars.
According to the additional public prosecutor GR Ingole, Jalgaon tehsildar carried out a surprise check at Ahuja's godown on June 7, 1995, and found the 22 bags. The sugar was attached and panchnama was prepared for violation of provisions of Maharashtra Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963. As per the licensing order, a retailer is permitted to store only 10 quintals of sugar if he doesn't have a license.
An FIR was registered the next day under the Act.
Ahuja pleaded not guilty and claimed that of the 22 bags, only eight belonged to him, and that the remaining had been sold to customers who had not picked them up.
His advocates, SP Shah and Mukul Kulkarni, argued that during the trial it has been mentioned that the 22 bags have been seized but nowhere has it been mentioned that they weighed 22 quintals. Hence, they said, the bags could be even 50kg or less, thus not crossing 10 quintals in all.
The prosecutor argued that during the trial Ahuja had made an application seeking return of 22 quintals of sugar seized in the raid, and, hence, the quantity was not in dispute before the trial court.
Ahuja's advocates then argued that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are applicable and benefit of the Act needs to be given to him. They claimed that Ahuja has discontinued his grocery business and is now running a hardware store, and also, there was no other complaint against him. The offence alleged is not grave and the quantity of sugar small, they argued.
However, the prosecutor argued that it was an economic offence involving white collar criminals, and sugar, at the time concerned, was a serious problem, with hoarding of the same affecting the public.
The HC dismissed Ahuja's appeal and rejected his plea for probation observing: "Facts show that at the time of incident the accused (Ahuja) was doing business in articles of grocery and had a shop and godown. ...looking (in)to the social object of controlling hoarding of essential commodities, in the facts and circumstances of the present matter, I do not think benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should be applied. Passage of time pending trial by itself does not reduce the rigour of offence of this nature."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}