Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010010302013 2025:GAU-AS:12978 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./358/2013 MD. RAJA ALI S/O MD NUR ISLAM R/O WARD NO.3 P.S. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N D SARMA, MR. E AHMED,MR.Z ALAM,MR.L SIKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 19-09-2025 Heard Mr. Z. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. The petitioners by way of instituting the present revision petition has presented a challenge to the judgment and order dated 06-10-2010, passed by the learned Judicial Page No.# 2/7 Magistrate First Class, Darrang, Mangaldoi in connection with CR Case No. 2605/2006 convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (six) months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 03 (three) months. The petitioner has also assailed the judgment and order dated 05-06-2013 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldoi in Crl. Appeal No. 27(D-4)/2010 upholding the judgment and order dated 06-10-2010 passed by the learned trial court. 3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under: One Mukul Kumar Sarma, Inspector, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Darrang had filed an offence report against the petitioner, herein, alleging therein that on 18-06- 2006, when he had visited the jewellery shop of the petitioner at Mangaldoi, he found one domestic LPG cylinder being used, therein, in contravention of the provisions of Clause 3(1)(C) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Order, 2000. The court after taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act of 1955 issued process to him. Upon considering the evidences coming on record, charge under Section 7 of the Act of 1955 was framed against the petitioner. The charge on being framed was read over and explained to the petitioner, herein, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, a trial ensued. During the trial, the prosecution had examined 03 (three) witnesses and the court Page No.# 3/7 examined 01 (one) witness as court witness. The statement of the petitioner was, thereafter, recorded. On conclusion of the trial, the trial court vide judgment and order dated 06-10-2010, on appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded to hold that the petitioner, herein, had violated the conditions of the license granted to him under the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982 and thereby contravened an order made under Section 3 of the Act of 1955. On the basis of the said conclusions, the petitioner was convicted under Section 7 of the Act of 1955 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 03 (three) months. The petitioner being aggrieved by his conviction, had assailed the same by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 27(D-4)/2010 before the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi. The appellate court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record and considering the grounds of appeal, as urged by the petitioner, herein, proceeded vide Judgment dated 05-06-2013 to uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 7 of the Act of 1955. However, the learned appellate court, modified the sentence of the petitioner, herein, and sentenced the petitioner, herein to suffer simple imprisonment for 03 (three) months, along with a fine of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for further 01 (one) month. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials coming on record. Page No.# 4/7 5. The learned trial court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record in the trial, had drawn the following conclusions, vide judgment and order dated 06-10-2010: “The evidence of Pw2 clearly shows that a domestic gas cylinder was found in the shop premises of the accused on 18/8/06 which was eventually seized from the possession of the accused. Pw3 has clearly stated that he saw ornaments were being melted by using that gas cylinder. The defense did not deny this statement of Pw3 by putting any suggestion during cross examination. This shows that the accused was using a domestic gas cylinder for commercial purpose. Further, Pw1 and Pw3 have corroborated the testimony of Pw2 that a domestic gas cylinder was seized from the shop premises of the accused. There is nothing contrary on record to disbelieve these witnesses. Hence, I find the testimony of Pw1, Pw2 and Pw3 believable. According to Clause 3(1) (c) of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Order, 2000- "A person having a connection for liquefied petroleum gas under the public distribution system, shall not use liquefied petroleum gas for any other purpose other than for which the consumer is registered with the distributor or Govt." I must point out herein that domestic gas cylinder cannot be used for commercial purpose by the consumer/accused. The accused failed to adduce any evidence to show that he had license to use domestic gas cylinder in his commercial shop premises. Therefore, it appears that the accused has violated his condition of license granted under The Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982 thereby contravening an order made u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On drawing the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court passed the following order; Therefore, from the discussions made above, I find that the prosecution has succeeded to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused is accordingly found guilty of charge u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- i/d 3 months further Simple Imprisonment. Free copy of the judgment be furnished to the accused forthwith.” 6. Being aggrieved by his conviction by the trial court, the petitioner, herein, assailed the same before the learned appellate court. The learned appellate court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions: Page No.# 5/7 “11. The testimonies of all the PW.s including the C.Ws could not be shaken by the defence by cross examining them or producing any rebuttal evidence in regards to use of Domestic Gas Cylinder for commercial purpose by the accused and seizure of the Gas Cylinder from the possession of the accused/appellant. The LD. Advocate appeared for the appellant mainly stressed on the point as per Ext. 2 two numbers of Gas Cylinder were taken jimma by the C.W.1 though it is claimed that only one Gas Cylinder is seized from the accused/ appellant. On careful perusal of the jimmanama (Ext.2) it is seen that there is no mention as to wherefrom the two Gas Cylinders were given Jimma to the C.W.1. The Cylinder seized in connection with this case along with one rubber pipe has taken jimma by the C.W.1 along with some other materials which are not connected in this case. The probability of seizure of other materials in connection with other case cannot be denied and merely because of the mentioning of the other materials in the jimmanama the seizure of the Gas Cylinder in connection with this case cannot be disbelieved when other reliable and corroborating piece of evidence is available. It is established from the evidence of the P.W.s that the PW2 accompanied by P.W.3 visited the jewallary shop of the accused/appellant and accordingly found him using the Domestic Gas Cylinder in commercial purposed in his jewallary shop. This part of evidence both P.W.2 and P.W.3 cannot be shaken by the defence. Moreso, the presence of P.W.1 at the time of seizure also cannot be disproved or rebutted by the defence who saw the cylinder in the foot path which was seized from the possession of the accused/appellant. 12. Considering the detail above it is held that the Id. Court below committed no error or mistake while convicting the accused/appellant U/S-7 of EC Act, 1955. However considering the gravity of the offence, circumstances in which it took place and all other aspects I find that interference of this court is necessary in regards to the sentence part imposed on the accused/appellant.” On drawing the said conclusions, the learned trial court passed the following order: “In the result the appeal is partly allowed on contest. The Judgment and order passed by Ld. Court below convicting the accused/appellant U/S-7 of EC Act dated 6.10.2010 in CR No. 2605/06 is hereby upheld with slight modification in the sentence part whereby the accused/appellant is sentenced with S/l for 3 months along with a fine of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand) only, in default S/l for one (1) month.” 7. I have closely perused the conclusions drawn both by the learned trial court and by the learned appellate court and find the same to be supported by the evidences coming on record during the trial. This Court on close perusal of the conclusions drawn by the Page No.# 6/7 learned trial court and the learned Appellate Court does not find any infirmity therein. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, would not mandate any interference. 8. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the offence committed by the petitioner in the matter was so committed on 18-06-2006, more than 19 years have passed since the date of commission of the offence. The materials brought on record does not reveal that the petitioner, herein, was involved in commission of similar offences either prior to 18-06-2006 or during the pendency of the proceeding instituted against him after 18-06-2006. Accordingly, he is deemed to be a first time offender in the matter. The learned trial court while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had not examined as to whether the benefits under the provisions of Probations of Offenders Act, 1958 would be liable to extended to the petitioner, herein. The learned appellate court also did not consider the said aspect of the matter vide its judgment dated 05-06-2013. 9. This Court is of the view that a court may not the grant benefit available to an accused under the provisions of the Act of 1958, under the given facts of the case. However, a due and proper consideration is mandatorily required to be extended to the accused in this connection. Accordingly, considering the lapse of 19 years from the date of incident and the fact that the petitioner, herein, is alleged to have been involved in commission of similar offence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case wherein the benefit of the Act of 1958 should be extended to the petitioner in the present proceeding, by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, for the reasons noticed hereinabove, the petitioner is granted the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the effect Page No.# 7/7 that instead of sending the petitioners to the jail, he should be given the benefit of the Section 4 of the Act of 1958. However, the fines as imposed upon the petitioners by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 05-06-2013 is not interfered with. 11. As such, it is directed that the appellant, herein, will file 02 (two) sureties to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each along with a personal bond before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldoi and undertake to the effect that the appellant shall keep peace and good behaviour during the period of 06 (six) months from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond shall be filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from today, along with payment of fine as awarded by the learned trial court. 12. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands disposed of. 13. Registry to send back the TCR, forthwith, along with a copy of the present order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant