HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2684 of 1988 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. 3. Record shows that this appeal is of the year 1988 and the appellant namely Ram Murat, who were granted bail by this court vide order dated 28.11.1988, while admitting this appeal is ever since then, enjoying the liberty of bail. 4. On 17.12.2025 a coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order :- "1. List has been revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. 2. Vide order dated 12.11.2025, bailable warrant was issued against the appellant. 3. It is stated in the report of C.J.M. Prayagraj dated 15.12.2025, that the appellant-Ram Murat could not be traced out at the given address. 4. Let non-bailable warrant be issued against the appellant and the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to get the non-bailable warrant executed and ensure the arrest of the appellant through concerned Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police under intimation within one month. 5. The office is directed to send the details of sureties with photocopy of the bail bonds indicating the details of the sureties of the appellant to the Chief Judicial Magistrate forthwith so that appropriate action be taken against the sureties also under Section 446 Cr.P.C., in case non-bailable Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jitendra Tewari Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Ram Murat .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) warrant is not executed. 6. List this case on 29.01.2026." 5. The office report dated 28.1.2026 is delineated below :- "In compliance of Hon'ble Court's order dt. 17-12-25, a letter dt. 28-01- 26 (at flag 'D') has been received from Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj wherein it is stated that appellant Ram Murat could not be traced out and his whereabouts are not known. Both the sureties of the appellant have died." 6. Office vide it's report dated 29.1.2026 has reported as follows :- "It is humbly submitted that the C.J.M., Prayagraj vide leter dated 28.1.26 (at flag 'E') has reported that appellant Ram Murat could not be traced out. Both the sureties of the appellant namely Prithivi Lal and Maiku Lal have died." 7. To cut a long story short, I do not find any prospect of the accused- appellant- Ram Murat, who are absconding, being traced out and produced before this Court. It is apparent that they are not interested in the disposal of this appeal and has abused the liberty of bail by failing to appear before this Court despite non-bailable warrants. Proceeding under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was initiated against the sureties of the appellant, but it has been reported that the sureties of the appellant have died. The question which arises before us is that whether this Court is bound to wait perennially for the accused- appellants till the accused-appellants are searched, if at all, and produced before us and keep on adjourning the hearing of this appeal. 8. Faced with the aforesaid contingency and looking to the huge pendency of cases before this Court, I am not inclined to pass over this appeal. Under identical circumstances, the Apex Court, after a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions on the issue, has distilled the legal position into six propositions in paragraph 19 of its judgment delivered in the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721 : "19.1 That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits; 19.2 That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent; CRLA No. 2684 of 1988 2 19.3 That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so;" 19.4 That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgement of the trial court; 19.5 That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so; and 19.6 That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation." 9. Thus, in view of the legal position propounded by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga (supra), I proceed to examine this appeal on merits qua appellant- Ram Murat with assistance of Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State. I have perused the lower court record and heard learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 10. By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the Judgment and order dated 15.11.1988 passed by learned Special Judge, (Essential Commodities Act), in Case No.9 of 1987 arising out of Crime No.30 of 1984, under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, whereby convicting the appellant and sentencing the appellant to undergo one year R.I. alongwith fine Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine appellant shall undergo six month R.I. 11. In nutshell, the prosecution story is that on 7.6.1984 under the instruction of S.D.M., Meja, Sri K.R. Pundir-P.W.1 checked the vehicle near village Bahraiya where there is a barrier. The Truck No.USF 1028 was loaded with 74 bags of gram; 32 and half quintal of rice; 3 and half quintal of wheat; 18 quintal of Khali and three quintal of Alsi. The Truck was intercepted at 7:30 A.M.. There were no papers with the accused who was driving the vehicle, The accused did not disclose the name of the owner. The accused was arrested. A fard Exhibitt Ka-1 was prepared. The case was investigated by Sri Shiv Prasad Singh Sub-Inspector. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Echibit Ka-5 and submitted the charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-6. The formal proof has been dispensed with and these two CRLA No. 2684 of 1988 3 document have been admitted. The chick F.I.R. Exhibit Ka-3 and the copy of G.D. Exhibit Ka-4 have been admitted by the defence. The District Magistrate has accorded the sanction Exhibit Ka-2, proved by P.W.1 Sri K. R. Punder. 12. Learned trial Judge after considering the case on its merit returned aforesaid finding of conviction and sentenced the accused-appellant under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment with default stipulations. 13. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the appellant has preferred the instant criminal appeal. 14. Bare perusal of the record itself is indicative of fact that Truck No.USF 1028 was loaded with 74 bags of gram; 32 and half quintal of rice; 3 and half quintal of wheat; 18 quintal of Khali and three quintal of Alsi. The Truck was intercepted at 7:30 A.M.. There were no papers with the accused who was driving the vehicle, The accused did not disclose the name of the owner. The accused was arrested. 15. In my considered opinion, possessing food grains without a valid license is a punishable offense, and there can be no defense to claim the goods belonged to someone else. The trial court noted that a prompt F.I.R. was registered and the District Magistrate had properly sanctioned the case. The accused was caught with a significant quantity of goods: 74 bags of gram, 33 bags of Rice, Wheat, Khali, and Alsi. The U.P. Foodgrains Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order prohibits possessing such quantities without a license. 16. Under the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate attempt to falsely rope in the accused-appellants in this case, while allowing the real culprit to go scot-free. 17. It is established principle of criminal jurisprudence that testimony of eye- witnesses cannot be thrown away. 18. There is no case or circumstance either existing or emerging after contemplating various aspects of this case qua evidence on record against the appellant. 19. The learned trial judge while considering the various aspects of the case CRLA No. 2684 of 1988 4 and various specific facets regarding the commission of the crime and the incident itself has elaborated a well-reasoned and detailed judgment, scrutinzing and analyzing each and every vital aspect of the case and judgment of conviction has been recorded after proper scrutiny of the evidence and facts on record. 20. In view of above, it may be conveniently summed up that the trial Judge has taken into consideration various aspects of the case and has appraised facts and testimony of prosecution witnesses in right prospective and has rightly recorded finding of conviction and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment with default stipulations, which is just punishment and would meet the ends of justice. 21. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is obvious that this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 22. The appellant is at large. The trial court is expected to leave no stone unturned for ensuring arrest of the appellant to enable him to serve out the sentence imposed by the judgment of the trial court. 23. Let a copy of this order/judgment be certified to the court below forthwith for necessary information and follow up action. January 29, 2026 Dev (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal, J.) CRLA No. 2684 of 1988 5 Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad