1 2025:CGHC:24728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 761 of 2016 1 - Chandru Ratre S/o Dhanu Bhagat Aged About 45 Years At Present - 50 Years, R/o Village - Lilwapara, P.S. - Mungeli, District - Bilaspur, Present District Mungeli Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - Pramod Mohle S/o Taran Das Aged About 30 Years At Present - 35 Years, R/o Ambedkar Ward Mungeli, Tehsil - Mungeli, District - Bilaspur, Present District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gabbar @ Mahabir Dhruw S/o Bodhan Ram Dhruv Aged About 28 Years At Present-33 Years, R/o Ravanbhatha, Mungeli, Tehsil - Mungeli, District - Bilaspur, Present District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh , District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Applicants :Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State :Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.06.2025 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 23/11 and 24/11 (Chandru Ratre and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh) by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.), whereby it has modified the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, in Criminal Case No. 270/2009, by which the revisionists have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act (each) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-(each), in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month (each). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.11.2006, an FIR was lodged by complainant namely Sanat Kumar before Police Station Mungeli with the intend that the applicants were illegally transporting 200 liters kerosene oil for the purpose of selling it, which were kept in 4 gallons of 50 liters each. This kerosene oil was to be distributed among the public under Public Distribution System. On the basis of aforesaid report, the police caught the applicants who were allegedly carrying kerosene in a vehicle and the applicants were charged for offence under Section 3 & Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which were denied by the applicants and submits that they have been falsely implicated. 3. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mungeli, convicted the 3 applicants/revisionists for the offence punishable under Section 3 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act (each) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine amount of Rs. 500/-(each), in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month (each). Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, whereby the learned appellate Court has reduced sentence and the amount of fine. The sentence of the applicants was altered to 3 months from 6 months (each) and the amount of fine was enhanced Rs. 1500/- from 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for one months (each). Hence, this revision. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants do not challenge their conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that the sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicants have already undergone about 19 days of jail sentence out of three months for offence under Section 3 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the jail sentence already undergone by them may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616. 5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/ State, would strongly support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicants/revisionists for the offence punishable under Section 3 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act (each) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine amount of Rs. 500/-(each), in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month (each). Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, whereby the learned appellate Court has reduced sentence and the amount of fine. The sentence of the applicants was altered to 3 months from 6 months (each) and the amount of fine was enhanced Rs. 1500/- from 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for one month (each). 8. Considering the findings given by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, I am of the view that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in modifying/reducing the sentence of the applicants for offence under Sections 3 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 9. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant No.3, namely, Gabbar @ Mahabir Dhruv is concerned, he has already died during the pendency of the case and as such, the revision in respect of 5 the applicant No.3 stands abated and the same is consigned to records. 10. So far as the remaining applicant No. 1 and 2 are concerned, as they had faced criminal trial since 2006 and thereafter more than 20 years have elapsed, considering the age of the applicants at present and further considering that the applicants have already undergone about 19 days of jail sentence out of three months for the offence under Section 3 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and have already deposited the fine amount as has been awarded by the trial Court as well as appellate Court, there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in jail as they have already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court, looking to the period of detention of applicant Nos. 1 and 2, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Ordered accordingly. 11. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal